Talk:Melbourne central business district

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Urban studies and planning Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Australia: Melbourne Mid‑importance Melbourne central business district is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (assessed as Mid-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

"Ferries dock along the northbank of the Yarra at Federation Wharf and the turning basin at the Aquatic Centre," but no reference is provided. Perhaps the author meant to refer to the Melbourne_Aquarium centre which is located on the northbank of the Yarra, as opposed the Melbourne_Sports_and_Aquatic_Centre located in Albert Park? --wcrosbie, Melbourne, Australia 11:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcrosbie (talk • contribs)

User:Adam Carr has redirected this to article to a redirect, claiming in his edit summary ‘there is no such place as "Melbourne (suburb)". the centre of a city is not a suburb of itself. this material should be incorporated into City of Melbourne or Melbourne CBD’. Well, of course there’s no such place as ‘Melbourne (suburb)’; this article was about the suburb of Melbourne. It was an awful edit, with a poor justification:

• The edit was poorly executed. You don’t create double redirects and then walk off. (On the other hand, it was precisely because you did this that I was alerted to the problem.)
• The edit caused information to be lost. If you think this article should be merged with another, please put up a merge template and discuss it. Don’t unilaterally disappear information.
• The definition of ‘Suburb’ on the suburb article is ‘inside a town or city's outer rim or just outside its official limits (the term varies from country to country), or the outer elements of a conurbation’. Obviously this is not the definition used in Australia. Otherwise, Fitzroy would not be a suburb of Melbourne any more than Melbourne is.
   Instead, suburbs are ‘official postal and addressing subdivisions of a city’, as says that same article. The fact that Australian English differs from American English is no reason to unilaterally delete an article on an important part of Melbourne.
• The area of the suburb of Melbourne is coterminus neither with the area of the LGA the City of Melbourne nor with the CBD. No-one would consider the King’s Domain or High Street to be a part of the CBD, yet they are a part of the suburb of Melbourne. And as the article states, parts of the suburb of Melbourne are outside of the City of Melbourne; and much of the City of Melbourne are other suburbs, such as Southbank, Richmond and North, East and West Melbourne. You can confirm this by looking in the red maps in your Melways.

An article on the suburb of Melbourne is precisely as justified as an article on other inner suburbs of Melbourne, many of which are at least partially outside of Melbourne. I have therefore reverted the change.

—Felix the Cassowary 14:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is located here Talk:Melbourne under the title "Melbourne the Suburb vs Melbourne the metropolis vs City of Melbourne". Concensus is yet to be reached, but as yet there have been no valid arguments against the existence of this article. --Biatch 04:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not the title so much as what's included in the definition of 'Melbourne city centre' which needs some clarification. Since when, for example, has anything south of the river been included in 'the CBD' (such as 'parks' and the botanical gardens). Its this which needs refining. Eyedubya (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why ? Where is the discussion ?? call this democracy ? --Biatch 04:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Again why ? wouldn't some discussion before removal be much better idea considering that this information has survived several edits. --Biatch 04:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy. I removed those two sections because they were in violation of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and in the case of the sport section, tripe.--cj | talk 05:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is courteous to request citations and references where required and discussion as opposed to simple deletion. It is things like this that sometimes completely turn me off contributing to wikipedia. --Biatch 06:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, frankly, if you feel it is appropriate to make personal attacks, maybe you should stop contributing to Wikipedia.--cj | talk 07:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove the infobox ? This is inconsistent with the other articles of the same type. And I am considering quitting Wikipedia if it wasn't so addictive. Noone gives a stuff about constructive editing. --Biatch 09:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no other articles of the same type.--cj | talk 01:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know where did the boundaries specified in the Geography section come from? --JohnnoShadbolt 06:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like the Melway but the definition looks more hazardous than your typical Government Gazette. I'm not sure that anyone reading it could tell you afterwards what is Melbourne city centre and what isn't. Orderinchaos78 07:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly. What say we clear things up by simply saying select areas, such as the Hoddle Grid, Docklands, and Southbank? If that's not good enough, let's at least try to avoid listing a string of street names. --JohnnoShadbolt 12:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has anything south of the Yarra been included in the CBD, the CAD or 'Melbourne City Centre'? I'd argue that most Melburnians would accept that 'Melbourne City centre' means the Hoddle grid up to Victoria Street (i.e. including the Vic Market, RMIT's precinct etc), and the parliamentary precinct, but otherwise exclude places east of Spring St, West of Southern Cross/Spencer St, South of the Yarra and North of Victoria St/Parade. - after all, Docklands is Docklands (and has its own postcode), North and West Melbourne, ditto, Southbank, same deal, and East Melbourne is just that - East Melbourne. While the St. Kilda Road precinct is within the City of Melbourne, I don't think most people would regard it as part of the CBD. So yes, let's see if we can find some common ground here and tidy this one up, finally ... Eyedubya (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought the northern border of the cbd was victoria street, and the wedge between grattan and victoria street was part of carlton. Either the melways are wrong or this is a factual error, can someone with more knowledge confirm this and fix it. Ben 1220 (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Main problem is that the CBD is not defined by any authoritative reliable source, but Melbourne, the central locality of the Melbourne metropolis with postcodes 3000 and 3004, is. Orderinchaos 07:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian Bureau of Statistics uses the same area definition as Melways [1] and defines Melbourne as a suburb. Nowhere does the Australian Bureau of Statistics however refer to as "Melbourne City Centre". Interestingly out of the 12,976 dwellings there are just 16 Single-family detached homes in Melbourne, what a contrast to Greater Melbourne. I know of just one private mansion remaining on St Kilda Road, I wonder where the other 15 are. --Biatch (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have stumbled into a long-running dispute. The basic problem is that there are two areas here - the Melbourne CBD (postcode 3000), consisting of the Hoddle Grid and a few blocks to its north; and an area extending south of the Yarra along St Kilda Road and its surrounds (postcodes 3004 and 3006). I don't know any Melburnian who would consider this southern area part of the CBD, but it is confusingly also called Melbourne.

It seems to me that an easy way to resolve the dispute is to split into two articles. One - "Melbourne (Central Business District)" should strictly cover the area defined by postcode 3000. The other - "Melbourne (suburb)" should cover the area south of the Yarra.

My zac's worth.

MarcusCole12 (talk) 03:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Sydney CBD article has a list of big businesses with headquarters in the CBD. What about a Melbourne list. NAB, ANZ, BHP Billiton etc all have hqs there. --Biatch 02:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. Go for it! Eyedubya (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically several of these businesses have now moved to Melbourne Docklands so should not be listed here. NAB and ANZ both now call Docklands home.--Biatch (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has overlaps with City of Melbourne and Melbourne. It says its about the area covered by the postcodes 3000 and 3004, yet provides no rationale for this set of boundaries. Within the article, its boundaries are re-drawn. The need for a separate article of this length isn't justfied, and it would be more logical to merge it with either City of Melbourne or Melbourne, and have a section on the 'city centre'. Or to Merge those parts of its content that are relevant with City of Melbourne and the rest with Melbourne. Eyedubya (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has just added an edit about the grid pattern of central Melbourne - but this only applies to part of the area supposedly being covered by this article - it needs to be more well-defined, and in so doing, the reason for this article will start to disintegrate further. Eyedubya (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article .... http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/is-the-queen-street-mall-in-brisbane/2009/01/05/1231003913762.html clearly states what I've been saying all along. It is called "Melbourne" the suburb and it is not called "Melbourne City Centre". Melbourne metropolitan area is referred to as "Greater Melbourne". --Biatch (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is one of disambiguation, not one of source naming in this instance. Orderinchaos 06:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed and referenced the article to reflect the Melbourne City Council (see: [2]) and the state Department of Planning and Community Development (see: [3]) definition of the City Centre (also referred to as the "Capital City Zone"). Also integrated some of the suggestions of companies headquartered in the City Centre, etc. I'm pretty sure this is what's to be considered the actual City Centre - basically a "locality" within the City of Melbourne. Thoughts? - NouvelleAuteur (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have kept the name as "Melbourne City Centre" as this common name brings up 197,000 results in Google. --Biatch (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've lived in Melbourne my whole life and never heard it called the City Centre, its always been CBD. 118.209.25.15 (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually in agreement on this one. The majority of interstate CBD articles are at "X central business district". Orderinchaos 09:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree, only time I've seen "City Centre" is with road signs but a city centre is always refereed as "CBD". Bidgee (talk) 09:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also Agree. I have lived in and around the CBD as wel call it for many years. I have not once heard it referred to as City Centre. Always CBD. Two stripe (talk) 06:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The title was the subject of a protracted discussion and vote at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian places/Archive 3. I note that the title of this article has since been capitalised, which I disagree with as it has no official status. Melburnian (talk) 11:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the 3 "location" references from the box. They do not provide useful information. All 3 locations Glen Waverley, Dandenong and Belgrave are all located in the same general area, so even if you were to argue for a number of relative location references, i dont see the value in having 3 so closely located. Two stripe (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editors here may be interested in this multiple RM that I have initiated. My preamble:

These articles are all concerned with street names in Melbourne. (I would have include another 17, but the template has a limit of 30.) I do not support these moves; but I know that some very active editors do. It is time to air the matter, once and for all. Is it better to have an article on Collins Street in Melbourne called simply Collins Street, or to have it called Collins Street, Melbourne as at present? Which option serves the needs of Wikipedia's worldwide readership better? In almost all cases that I list there is no content in the destination article, just a redirect. And in almost all cases there is no Wikipedia article that very closely resembles the Melbourne-oriented one. There are, for example, no other Collins Streets with their own articles.

Your vote ("Support" or "Oppose") would be welcome, along with your reasons.

Noetica^Tea? 12:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Melbourne City Centre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090922180717/http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/rsrc/PDFs/History/HistoryMelbourne.PDF to http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/rsrc/PDFs/History/HistoryMelbourne.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Melbourne City Centre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090921234032/http://www.slv.vic.gov.au/portphillip/inter/3565.shtml to http://www.slv.vic.gov.au/portphillip/inter/3565.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Melbourne City Centre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nma.gov.au/kidz/batmania/batmania_html_version/the_deed/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item.asp?dID=42&aID=8&pID=73%2F
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061003232706/http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/info.cfm?top=53&pg=728 to http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/info.cfm?top=53&pg=728
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100116042720/http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/end-in-view-for-rialtos-top-deck-20091007-gn8m.html to http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/end-in-view-for-rialtos-top-deck-20091007-gn8m.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060708054346/http://www.theage.com.au/realfooty/news/AFL/A-new-base-for-Demons/2005/03/01/1109546868430.html to http://www.theage.com.au/realfooty/news/AFL/A-new-base-for-Demons/2005/03/01/1109546868430.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Melbourne City Centre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110904084600/http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID%3D39255%26URL_DO%3DDO_TOPIC%26URL_SECTION%3D201.html to http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID%3D39255%26URL_DO%3DDO_TOPIC%26URL_SECTION%3D201.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Melbourne City Centre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061003191022/http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/info.cfm?top=91&pg=866 to http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/info.cfm?top=91&pg=866

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree ive never heard 'the city' called the "City Centre' but maybe its good if its going to cover all the various definitions, which I think it should. So i suggest that this article discuss the various definitions, which have of course changed over time. There is a separate article on the Hoddle Grid, which is clearly about just the rectangular grid. The Melbourne 3000 postcode is the grid plus northern triangle, PLUS the north half of the river between Spencer and Swanston, (minus a confusing arm up Elizabeth street) which is probably what most people think of as the 'the city', though prob also including Fed Sq and maybe Parl House ? The 3004 Melbourne postcode however is def NOT 'the city' in anyway, so Im going to start by eliminating it from the article, or rather discussing it and saying its a separate thing, I hope thats ok. The 3000 postcode area is pretty much the original CBD when it was first coined in the Borrie Report in 1964 (Ill see if i can post that map ! - found it) which included the river up to Spring St actually. In the 1980s, this area was officially called the CAD, but it never stuck. These seem to have also included the few blocks north of latobe up to dudley street on the west side of Flagstaff gardens.

Ah, i see that the area of the Statistical Area Level 2 Melbourne is pretty much the same, so i think thats the one ill refer to mostly. Its [[| Statistical Area Level 2 Melbourne|here]]

The planning for the city got re-jigged in 1999 when a new thing was created, the Central City Zone, 'CCZ' - which was the old CBD, minus the RMIT area (for some reason) and the dudley street bit, but including much of Southbank down to a zigzag line, including the north wharf area and the exhibition centre area too. Then in 2014 this got expanded down to the freeway and bit beyond actually. Maybe ill do a new para that explains this planning history ? Not sure Ive got much to link it to online, but i do have publications. Meanwhile we should stick to something close to the postcode 3000 / CBD / CAD, while noting that official boundaries have moved at various times.

Ive just now read all the discussion about this article over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian places/Archive 3 though that seems to be mostly about the name, which i wont touch ! From that discussion sounds safe enough to eliminate the 3004 postcode part, its confusing. And heres the official locality map --Rohanstorey (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Dr. Vogel (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The map displayed has some really weird borders. As a Melbournian I would consider Southbank and Docklands as part of the CBD but not all the way down near Albert Park. I have no idea how this would be fixed (I rarely edit beyond English Wikipedia), but if someone can, that would be great. JML1148 (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]