Melbourne, once Australia's garden city, is buckling under the weight of runaway population growth. From 3.5 million in 2000 to 5.5 million in 2025, the city has added 2 million people in just 25 years. Roads are jammed, hospitals are overrun, and homes cost an eye-watering $1 million. Yet, the Victorian government's plan is to cram in another 3.5 million by 2050, ballooning Melbourne to 9 million, a megacity rivalling London, without the infrastructure to cope. Leith van Onselen at Macrobusiness calls this the "deliberate destruction of Melbourne," and it's hard to disagree. Who's driving this madness, and why aren't Australians being heard?

Melbourne's population growth is staggering. It took 165 years to reach 3.5 million by 2000, but in just 25 years, the city added 2 million more, hitting 5.5 million by 2025, per Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data. Net overseas migration fuelled much of this, with 142,600 new residents in 2023–24 alone. The government projects 9 million by 2050, a 5.5 million increase in 50 years. That's like adding another Melbourne and a half in half a century.

The toll is obvious. Traffic is gridlocked, with Herald Sun reporting daily commuter chaos. Public transport is packed, schools are overcrowded, and green spaces are vanishing under concrete. Housing? Forget it. Cotality pegs Melbourne's median home price at $1 million, and rents are up 13.7% yearly for units. Liveability is crumbling, and the public knows it, X users are already calling the 9 million future an "overcrowded hellhole."

To house 3.5 million more by 2050, Melbourne faces a high-rise takeover. Van Onselen estimates that even 1 million new residents in apartments would require 1,455–3,600 new 25-storey towers, assuming 2.5 people per unit. That's a city of skyscrapers, not suburbs. Backyards and parks? Gone. Traffic and overcrowding? Worse. And don't expect affordability, building high-rises costs more than detached homes, despite what developers claim. Sydney's headed the same way, with Urban Taskforce modelling showing apartments overtaking houses by 2057.

This isn't just growth; it's transformation into a megacity most Aussies didn't ask for. Van Onselen warns of "slum" risks, and while that's dramatic, the loss of Melbourne's character, its leafy streets and liveable suburbs is real. X posts echo this, with users lamenting "shoebox" apartments and a city losing its soul.

Who's pushing this? Van Onselen points to a "growth lobby" of politicians and developers reaping profits while ignoring liability. Governments, Labor and Liberal alike, love the GDP boost from migration, migration accounts for 60–70% of Victoria's growth, per ABS. But where's the infrastructure? Budgets for roads, hospitals, and schools lag far behind. The Property Council of Australia and developers cheer growth, but ordinary Aussies pay the price in unaffordable homes and clogged cities.

The "no limits" crowd even floats absurd targets like 150 million for Australia, or 300 million, matching the U.S. Let's play their game: What if we stuffed 150 million into Melbourne tomorrow? At 15,000 people per square kilometre, you'd get Mumbai-level density. Every suburb becomes a high-rise slum, water and power collapse, and food shortages spark chaos. Or 1 billion? That's Hong Kong's density across 10,000 km, ² a dystopian hell of towers and pollution. This satire exposes the insanity of unchecked growth. Even 9 million strains Melbourne's limits. Who benefits when liability tanks?

This is about planning that puts Aussies first. The establishment, politicians, developers, and academics like Peter McDonald, touts growth as progress, but it's a raw deal for most. The Herald Sun called last year's 166,000 spike "madness," and Aussies agree, slamming all parties for selling out. Why isn't infrastructure keeping up? Why do developers get a free pass while families can't buy homes? And why does the government ignore the public's cries for liveable cities?

We need answers:

1.Federal Inquiry: Investigate migration policies and urban planning. Are developers dictating terms?

2.Infrastructure First: Tie population growth to real investments in roads, hospitals, and schools.

3.Listen to Aussies: Stop foisting megacity dreams on a public that wants suburbs, not skyscrapers.

Melbourne's at a breaking point. A society can't function when its cities are crushed by policies nobody voted for.

https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2025/06/the-deliberate-destruction-of-melbourne/

"The deliberate destruction of Melbourne

Melbourne's population was about 3.5 million people at the turn of the century. It took 165 years for Melbourne to grow to this size in the year 2000.

Fast forward to 2025, and Melbourne's population is nearing 5.5 million. That's almost a 2 million population increase in less than a quarter of a century.

Liveability in Melbourne has unambiguously worsened. Roads and public transport are clogged. Housing is smaller, poorer quality, and pricier. Public services, including hospitals and schools, are crush-loaded. And green space has been chewed up to make way for higher density.

The Victorian government continually touts that Melbourne's population will balloon to 9 million people – the size of London – by 2050. If that happens, Melbourne's population will grow by another 3.5 million people in only 25 years.

Think about this equation for a moment. It took 165 years for Melbourne to grow to 3.5 million people in 2000. Yet, Melbourne is projected to grow by the same amount in the next 25 years, which comes on top of the circa 2 million growth experienced already this century, which has crush-loaded everything.

Or to put it another way, Melbourne's population is projected to increase by 5.5 million people in the 50 years between 2000 and 2025, from 3.5 million to 9.0 million.

Who genuinely thinks such population growth is a good idea? And will it improve living standards? The answer is clearly "no".

Rohan Smith at News.com.au interviewed me on this issue, seeking my views on Melbourne's transformation into a high-rise city.

"It's disgusting", I said to Smith. "Melbourne is already the most unsustainable city in Australia. If you're going to stuff 3.5 million more people in over 25 years, you're going to need to bulldoze people's homes into highrise and get rid of the democratic process".

"If you stuff thousands more people into existing suburbs, you can't recreate the green space and parks. You consolidate a groups of blocks with backyards into highrise. It means more traffic, more cars, more overcrowding everywhere. You're going to end up creating a slum".

"Get used to it. There is no other future", I said.

The scale of the transformation required to house another 3.5 million people in such a short period of time is staggering. Consider the following arithmetic.

Imagine if only one million of the extra 3.5 million lived in high-density apartments.

Let's say 25 storeys each, with 275 apartments in each tower.

That equates to at least 3,600 more 25-storey towers across Melbourne.

Sure, many of these apartments will have more than one person living in them, which is why I deliberately chose only one million extra apartments.

Regardless, the point is clear. Melbourne would be transformed into a high-rise megacity.

The situation is similar in Sydney, whose population is projected to exceed 8 million people by the 2060s.

Modelling conducted pre-pandemic by the Urban Taskforce projected that Sydney's dwelling composition would transform from having a majority of detached housing to having a majority of apartments by 2057:

These apartments won't be affordable, either, given it costs more to build an apartment than a detached house or townhouse.

Is high-density shoebox living what Australians want? Or is it being foisted upon us by greedy politicians and their 'growth lobby' donors.

It is time to fight back against the deliberate destruction of Australia."