The Westgate Bridge

The Westgate Bridge is the major bridge linking western and eastern Melbourne.  As such, it is often seen as symbolic of the divide between the different parts of Melbourne.  I know residents of the eastern suburbs who have literally never driven over that bridge.

I recently had the opportunity to go on a boat tour of the Port of Melbourne precinct, and took some photos of the bridge at angles you normally never see it at, so I thought I'd post them here for anyone who's interested to view.

Many people think of the bridge as being isolated and industrial, but there's actually quite a lot of parkland around the bridge area.  There's even a golf course under the western approaches - you do the first hole on the southern side of the bridge and then the next tee is literally directly under it.

Next to the golf course is a sports field where football and cricket are played.  Apparently a few stray balls have ended up on the freeway!

The bridge was built so high to enable large container ships to pass under, as some of the key Port docks are upriver.  It's an amazing sight seeing those enormous ships entering and departing the Port and going under the bridge.  At high tide some of them only just squeeze under!

Buses and busy city streets

The following article is about a plan to create a fully-separated busway on 34th Street in New York:
http://www.streetsblog.org/2010/03/02/dot-plans-to-bring-nycs-first-separated-busway-to-34th-street/



We really need to do more of these in Melbourne too! Every time I work on a planning study for a freeway, I hear people saying that we should be investing in public transport instead. However, there's no reason why you can't use roads for public transport, and building one form of infrastructure and using it for all forms of transport (public, individual, freight and commercial) is the most efficient use of public funds.
Imagine something like this on Punt Road/Hoddle Street, Johnston Street and so on ... it would make both traffic and buses move much faster. The New York DoT is predicting that bus speeds will improve by 35%, which will reduce travel time significantly.
At present in Melbourne we are just too tentative about bus lanes. The ones on Springvale Road, for example, appear and disappear all the time, and are ignored more often than they are honoured. The buses are still stopping in traffic much of the time, because many of the bus stops have still not been indented from the road.
I used buses all the time when I was in New York - they were a great way to get around. It was easy to see where they were going and you could watch the city as you were passing by. Buses are clearly a major form of public transport in New York, covering areas where the subway system doesn't go.

There's an opinion piece in today's Age by a Michael James titled "Can sitcoms save us from urban sprawl?"
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/contributors/can-sitcoms-save-us-from-urban-sprawl-20100204-nfk6.html

His central argument is that we in Australia don't do medium to high density well. He points out that many sit-coms set in big cities (especially New York) are actually set in neighbourhoods characterised by medium-rise (eight or so stories), not high rise, apartments, and that this scale of development is more likely to lead to lively and engaged communities.

I find it interesting that a key element of Michael James' article, as with almost every other similar article I have ever read, is the argument that Australian achitecture is inferior to that found in other countries. We have 'soul-less high-rises' and 'ugly six-packs' where other countries have 'human scale' and 'lively'.

What is being taught in Architecture courses at Australian Universities? Why have we developed a culture of lowest-cost construction instead of greatest value construction? Why can't we desgin buildings that enable people to live together comfortably?

What kind of developers do we have, that they are unwilling or incapable of developing high-quality dwellings that contribute more to the social environment than just a roof over someone's head?

Maybe we need to move towards a more cooperative, rather than adversarial planning systems, where everyone works together to enhance our cities instead of just wringing a profit out of them. It would help if we stopped thiking of shelter in terms of dollar value and started thinking of it in terms of social value.

It seems to me that there is a doctoral thesis in the question "What level of density is most likely to produce an engaged and resilient community?" Most of the arguments for different densities are more along the lines of appeals to emotion than arguments based on hard data. We don't really know how the communities in New York, London, Amsterdam etc function. Large parts of New York have been condemned as crime-ridden slums at various times, including areas at the density level of the 'Friends' neighbourhood. If we want to increase the density of Australian cities, that's fine. But let's go and find out what really works in other countries, and why, and figure out how to make it work for us. I don't want urban planning based on holiday nostalgia.

Acronyms Galore

I have been collecting planning related acronyms for a while now. They fascinate me because they say so much about the way the various participants view each other. Anyway, here's a few of them:

Terms for objectors
LULU = Locally Unwanted Land Use
NIMBY = Not In My Back Yard
BANANA = Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything [or anyone]
CAVE people = Citizens Against Virtually Everything
NIMEY = Not in my election year (specific to politicians)
NIMTOO = Not in my term of office (specific to politicians)
NIMFOS = Not in my field of sight
NOPE = Not on planet earth
WIIFM What’s in it for me?

I want to come back to this at some stage because I often find that the LULU response is automatic when people are confronted with something that frightens them. It seems to me that planners make a mistake in arrogantly dismissing the LULU response - it's actually a valid reaction. It's how you deal with the reaction that really matters.

Plannerese
DBTD/DBTN: Two common vaccines used by planners to “fix” a project they don’t like. DBTD is technically Death By a Thousand Days and DBTN is Death By a Thousand Nicks [also known as the BED Principle—“Bleed ‘em Dry”]

Doczilla: Any technical report that should be caged rather than shelved.

DUDE: Developer Under Delusions of Entitlement

PowerPoint Poisoning: Nauseous state of mind and body induced by viewing “professional” presentations.

Sense of Immunity: Mistaken belief that land use regulation does not apply for a particular neighbourhood or site.

SLAPP: Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation

Gagplanistan: A place of massively meaningless planning.

These ones are equal parts cynical about the process and the participants!

The social impacts of tourism in coastal areas
Tourism is one of the fastest growing industries in the world, and coastal areas are particular magnets for this industry. Coastal tourism and recreation includes a wide range of tourism, leisure, and recreational activities that take place both in the coastal zone and in coastal waters off-shore. Coastal recreation and tourism activities include swimming, beach activities, recreational fishing, recreational boating, cruises, ecotourism, snorkeling and diving.

These activities are often supported by extensive tourism development such as accommodation, food services, entertainment venues, and other supporting infrastructure such as fishing piers and other fishing areas, recreational boating harbours and marinas, retail businesses, recreation and tourism businesses, landscaped beaches, etc.

It is a paradox of tourism visitation in coastal areas that it can result in damaging the natural attraction people came to see. It can also result in far-reaching and often unexpected social impacts. The environmental and social impacts of coastal tourism need to be a clear priority of governments at all levels. “Clean water, healthy coastal habitats, and a safe, secure, and enjoyable environment are clearly fundamental to successful coastal tourism. Similarly, bountiful living marine resources (fish, shellfish, wetlands, coral reefs, etc.) are of critical importance to most recreational experiences.” (NOAA 1998, p. 1).

Planning plays a key role in the tourism management process, however social impacts are rarely considered in a structured way. Key social issues that have been raised in relation to tourism development include:
· Sustainability: The need to limit tourism development to a level compatible with ecological and social carrying capacity
· Preservation of landscapes: Coastal construction should be controlled to prevent environmental damage and loss of social values. Unsustainable and inappropriate tourism developments should be discouraged
· Community development: Tourism should support activities that benefit local communities and contribute to development of sustainable communities
· Preservation of cultural identity: Tourism development should complement the character of the community and not lead to a fundamental change in the townscape or rural landscape character
· Economic development: Tourism developments should support diversified job creation by supporting local businesses in construction and operation as much as possible, as well as by networking with other local tourism businesses.

Sustainability
Increased tourism demands create pressure on carrying capacity. Greater visitor numbers may place habitats at risk and can jeopardise cultural heritage. Two important principles of developing sustainable tourism are to encourage conservation and provide benefits to the local community.

In the worst cases, tourism “consumes resources, creates waste and requires certain kinds of infrastructure; it creates conditions for possible over-consumption of resources; it is dominated by private investment with priority on maximizing profits … The challenge of sustainable tourism development, therefore, is to balance the principles with these truths, and this can be done only through integrated, cooperative approaches involving all stakeholders and related economic activities in the area. (ESCAP 2001, p. 5) The recent Coastal Spaces report (DSE) also notes that ‘lifestyle’ residential estates outside of existing settlements can commit coastal areas to urbanisation (p. ii).

Preservation of Landscapes
The coastal landscape is one of the key tourism attractors, however hinterland areas are also important in creating the unique sense of place of each coastal area. Planners need to work to preserve the social landscape by preventing inappropriate development and protecting valuable landscapes.

A key issue in Victorian coastal regions in recent years has been the development of wind farms. Coastal areas with strong wind resources are prime sites for wind farm development, however many areas have strong landscape values that are attractive to residents and tourists alike. This has effectively led to tourism and the alternative energy industry coming into conflict over which sector provides the greatest economic return and social benefit for the given coastal region.

Community Development
The local community should be a direct beneficiary of any tourism development. There is no reason why tourism development, at an appropriate level, cannot provide significant social benefits. This includes through provision of social infrastructure, access to a wider range of services than may otherwise exist, and economic opportunities.

Preservation of cultural identity
Tourism can lead to significant changes to the social fabric of coastal communities. There can be major increases in population and significant population fluctuations depending on the season. This may cause major amenity and dislocative impacts for full-time residents. They may find it harder to reach local facilities or services, or may feel that the amenity of the area has been adversely impacted by excessive tourism visitation. Planners need to balance the needs of tourists with the needs of local residents.

Many coastal towns in Victoria began as fishing villages or small-scale seaside resorts. Some are at risk of losing their cultural identity due to the scale of new development attracted by visions of a ‘sea change’ lifestyle. However extensive change to the built form can change a town’s identity. The challenge for planners is to develop planning policies that protect the features that make coastal towns so attractive while still allowing further development. ‘Lifestyle’ developments outside of the urban area can also change the way an area is perceived, from rural coastal to urban coastal or, depending on the locality, to urban fringe.

Economic development
Tourism is seen by many communities as a way to achieve significant economic growth. There is a risk that it can be over promoted as a community’s economic saviour without giving due benefit to the potential disbenefits of unrestrained growth.

The challenge for planners is to develop planning schemes that protect social values without unduly restricting appropriate development. Sustainable tourism development ensures that communities develop at a pace that maximises the full social and economic benefits of tourism while addressing development problems. In coastal areas, where the environment is particularly fragile, it is particularly important to balance the environmental impacts and economic gains carefully. In areas of particularly high environmental or cultural value, there may be an argument for accepting lower economic outcomes to preserve the social and environmental benefits.

Conclusion
The social and economic impacts of tourism in coastal areas should be a key consideration when planning the development of coastal communities. Consideration should be given to the existing values of these communities, and whether tourism has the potential to enhance or degrade these. Tourism can be planned in a way that provides considerable community benefit if social considerations are incorporated into the planning process.

References
Deery, Dr M undated Social Indicators for GREEN GLOBE Communities Sustainable Tourism CRC (unpublished presentation)
Department of Sustainability and Environment 2005 Coastal Spaces Inception Report May 2005, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne
Enterprise Directorate-General Tourism Unit 2000 Towards Quality Coastal Tourism European Commission, Brussels
International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives 1999 Sustainable Tourism: A Local Authority Perspective Commission on Sustainable Development, New York
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adinistration 1998 1998 Year of the Ocean: Coastal Tourism And Recreation http://www.yoto98.noaa.gov/yoto/meeting/tour_rec_316.html [Accessed 20OCT05]
Potter, Bruce 1996 Tourism and Coastal Resources Degradation in the Wider Caribbean Island Resources Foundation, St Thomas Virgin Islands http://www.irf.org/irtourdg.html
Spenceley, A 2001 Responsible Tourism Guidelines For The South African Tourism Industry (draft) Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, South Africa

Use of public spaces

I'm sitting in my 'office' watching the birds at the feeder in back yard. It fascinates me to see how they share the public space and resource of the bird feeder. Each bird species seems to have their own specified time to visit the feeder. When the native parrots arive (lorikeets and rosellas), all the introduced birds fly off, so they must recognise a hierarchy. One way or another, they all get their share of the bird seed.

It makes me think of the way we share public spaces in the urban environment. One of the key issues we have is that many people do not actually like to share public spaces with 'conflicting' groups. Young adults get the worst rap for this, in that they are unwanted in shared spaces by many. It's a real shame the way young people are treated as a 'problem' in Australian urban life, a group that needs to be controlled or moved on.

Frankston City Council has had a successful program of playing dodgy music at the Frankston Railway Station precinct to discourage young people from hanging around. I believe they started with classical music and then moved on to easy listening and country. Some retailers have started using loudspeakers that actually emit a high-pitched whine which is generally inaudible to adults but really irritating to younger people, with the aim of stopping them hanging around the public areas near their shops. I find this type of behaviour unbelievably offensive.

I wonder if any of these public space maangers have ever asked the question, "Why are they hanging around the station, and where will they go if they can't hang out there?". Truth is, train station precincts are a safe place for young people to be, with informal adult supervision and good lighting. If young people (mostly teenage boys) are forced out of this kind of precinct, they are going to end up in places which are much less safe. It's worth noting that young people are far more likely to be victims of crime in public spaces than older people. So shouldn't a key aim of managing public spaces be to provide youths with safe places to socialise?

In an ideal world we would be developing civic spaces where people from all age groups felt safe to socialise together. Many of the European piazzas are like that. Older people hang around all the time, at cafes and in park areas, and younger people are able to meet and socialise in safety.

It's a real shame that older people in Australia seem to insist on treating youths as a problem, rather than as a social group with a problem. All you hear about this group in the media is the drunken binging and wild parties, yet I have met some truly amazing young people who will contribute wonderful things to society as they mature, if only they are encouraged to believe that society wants their contribution.

Ingredients for successful community development

The VPELA Conference is on again soon. The theme is "People transforming Places"
http://vpela.org.au/events_upcoming.html. I'm going to be on a Panel on the 3rd September. The panel title is "Masterplanner or Masterchef? Recipes for successful communities."

After my first meeting with the other panellists it's clear that we all have widely divergent views on what the topic means, let alone how to run the Panel! So I wanted to put into words some of what I think are the key ingredients for a successful community.

To start with, I don't think pretty pictures or structure plans have any role in creating sucessful communities. Attractive, efficient suburbs, yes. Communities, no. Communities happen in spite of urban designers, not because of them.

The most vibrant, inclusive and tolerant communities are also the messiest. And that's four of my key ingredients right there.

Tolerance - one thing you lose when you're in a carefully segregated suburb designed by a corporate urban designer is any interaction with people who are different. By different, I mean the scary people - the weird little old lady, the young bloke with a disability who can't talk normally, the strange fat guy at the video store - all the people on the margins of society. If you never see these people, and never get used to the fact that they're just different, not wrong, you never learn to tolerate difference. It's actually scary to see the lack of tolerance for difference that has grown in our society in recent years. People who are afraid of difference, and who cannot tolerate it, further marginalise people who are already on the edge. And that is sad.

Accessibility - it's rare to see urban designers who design their suburbs specifically to suit people in wheelchairs. In fact, have you ever seen such a suburb? One of my best friends is in a wheelchair, and it's a real life lesson to travel around with her, to see how marginalised people with access difficulties are. The scary thing is that, as the baby boomers age, the number of people with access difficulties will increase exponentially. Designing for access really isn't that hard, and it makes a difference not just to people in wheelchairs but to everyone. Designing without thinking about access is just reinforcing existing barriers to participation in society.

Vibrancy and creativity - the happiest and strongest communities are those where art and culture are highly valued. They did it so right at Docklands when they required a proportion of all money spent in the district to be spent on public art. And the artworks on Eastlink are fantastic (except for the hotel). I will blog more on this topic later, because I firmly believe that art plays a key role in defining communities, both in terms of their sense of place and in terms of how people perceive the community.

Messiness - perfectly planned suburbs where people are effectively segregated by income level may work well in raising property values, but they are boring and have the effect of reinforcing negative cultural values. Communities should mix everyone in together. In any one street there should be flats and big houses and little houses and shops and so on. In any small neighbourhood there should be people of all ages and abilities and social profiles living close to one another. It's that kind of messiness that encourages tolerance and teaches the ability to get along with other people. Messy communities are much better able to deal with social issues and are much more likely to develop interesting and creative communities. Carlton and Brunswick, for example, have always been more interesting places than Carrum Downs or Werribee, and that has always been because they are messy places where the community comprises people from all walks of life. We should value that.

A lot of the commentary in the media today, and community reactions to local and world events, really seems to come from a fear of the other that has become entrenched since we all started 'nesting' in our beautifully planned subdivisions in the outer suburbs. I sometimes wonder if planners realise how these forms of urban design are having such a negative impact on our society. We really seem to be losing the resilience that naturally comes when you have to learn the social skills associated with dealing with a wide variety of people in everyday life. I particularly wonder where our loss of tolerance for people who are 'different' will end up.