Urban Development

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/75533/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Our cities are increasingly beset by a lack of affordable housing, inequality, lagging infrastructure – the list goes on.
To the rescue, we now have the New Urban Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). But how can they help?
Responding to the urban century
Australia and 166 other countries agreed the New Urban Agenda at the Habitat III conference in Quito last October. The agenda frames global policy for cities and urban settlements for the next 20 years. Signatories will be measured against its objectives.
This historic agreement did not attract the same attention as the Paris climate agreement, yet it has similarly profound and linked potential. The Paris agreement will determine what action countries take on climate change, shaping policies on energy use and carbon production. The New Urban Agenda will aim for city sustainability, shaping our liveability, homes and neighbourhoods.
The agenda responds to the urban century. It recognises the growth energised by cities but also their spatial, social, cultural and economic inequalities.
Action is urgently called for to tackle inequality. The shift to cities hasn’t reduced inequality. Instead, it has shifted poverty to cities and deepened inequality in the process.
Two key concepts of the New Urban Agenda are the “city for all” and the “right to the city”. It also clearly links to Sustainable Development Goal 11, which aims to:
… make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.
A lack of joined-up thinking
Three key problems beset our approach to cities. In principle, the New Urban Agenda and SDG 11 can help overcome these.
1) Policy siloes persist despite decades of rhetoric about joining up policy and programs. Housing affordability, planning and transport, economic development, public health and education, for example, remain remarkably siloed.
Transport policy rarely looks at employment and health impacts. Policy for providing affordable homes rarely examines the impact of employment and economic strategy on housing affordability. Promoting social cohesion and social inclusion is rarely considered in developing and delivering the education system.
Cities are intricate, entwined collections of people, plans and infrastructures. Throwing isolated and disconnected solutions at complex problems is a recipe for failure, but it’s one that is constantly repeated.
2) Governments not only typically divide their approaches to social and economic policy, they also have split responsibilities between levels of government. Separate ministers and departments deal with the very narrowly defined aspects of their portfolio.
In Australia, the policy separation between states and federal government magnifies the silo issue. Wide cracks between levels of government allow critical planning and policy decisions to be postponed for decades.
In this policy void, local and city governments often lead the way on issues of liveability, climate change mitigation, sustainability and social cohesion. However, many of the levers for change are above their reach. Those powers reside in state and federal governments.
3) Private sector, government and civil society interests remain fractured and opposed. Not enough attention is paid to negotiating common interests. Cities need capital but they also need to be liveable places for all citizens. New alliances are needed to reconcile needs and resources.
All the above problems are related to the overwhelming need for integration, which provides a common meeting point for a wide range of players to approach complex problems.
Not a task for government alone
Australia has no national housing or energy strategy. But both are critical to successful nations and cities.
The joined-up phrasing of the New Urban Agenda and SDG 11 offer an entry point. They provide a catalyst for integration in three critical areas:
policy formulation to tackle multiple, connected problems;
fresh attempts to develop integrated multi-level governance; and
reframed governance across bureaucracy, business and civil society.
Shared ideals, objectives and delivery mechanisms linked to the New Urban Agenda are the first step. This has already led to the setting up of a multi-partner initiative to support sustainable urban development.
The New Urban Agenda is the product of many hundreds of urban scholars, mayors, policymakers and community voices. It provides an integrative policy framework that sets a broad direction toward better cities.
Planning for the future of our cities can no longer ignore growing social, economic and environmental issues. And these are all exacerbated by wealth and income inequalities. The task of reframing governance across bureaucracy, business and civil society must recognise the uneven resources across the city, and reconcile the interests around the table.
Signing the Habitat III declaration was easy. Implementing the New Urban Agenda is a challenge that government will not be able to meet alone.
Ralph Horne is<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ralph-horne-160543"> </a>deputy pro vice chancellor, Research &amp; Innovation; Director of UNGC Cities Programme; Professor, RMIT University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ralph-horne-160543" target="_blank">here</a>.
David Adamson is Emeritus Professor, Social and Community Policy, The University of South Wales and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/david-adamson-259956" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

What can the New Urban Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals do for cities?

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
In the 1953 short story The Man Who Planted Trees, a lone shepherd plants thousands of trees, transforming a desolate valley into a vibrant forest with pleasant villages and unspoiled wilderness. The moral of this story is a simple one: that perseverance and planting trees can make places more desirable to live.
Across the United States, the US Forest Service is proving this, neighbourhood by neighbourhood.
Within some neighbourhoods, scientists are documenting a connection between trees and a specific social improvement: a reduction in crime. These studies combine modern mapping technology with spatial and economic statistics to compare crime levels between similar urban neighbourhoods in the same city.
This research is becoming increasingly widespread and sophisticated. According to Kathleen Wolf, a research social scientist with the University of Washington and the US Forest Service, this is “part of a movement to understand the role of nature in public health”. Wolf observes:
"Now that we’re in the era of Big Data, we’re seeing an acceleration of crime-related research in a wide variety of disciplines and fields. We’re also incorporating data on things like disparities of green in urban communities."
Not only do healthy, well-maintained trees provide shade and benefit the ecosystem, they can have a social meaning: that people in that neighbourhood look out for each other.
<h2>Progress in Baltimore</h2>
One of the places we are conducting this type of research is Baltimore. One of the oldest cities in US, Baltimore has more than 600,000 residents. It is known for its rich historical heritage, a picturesque inner harbour, crab cakes … and for having some of the worst crime and poverty levels in the nation.
According to recent estimates, 25 percent of Baltimore residents and 37 percent of Baltimore children live in poverty.
Faced with one of the highest homicide rates in the country, the city implemented a youth curfew law in 2014 to keep unaccompanied children off the streets at night.
Baltimore also has an extensive team of urban research scientists, affiliated with both the US Forest Service Baltimore Field Station and the Baltimore Ecosystem Study, and a proactive non-profit organisation, The Parks &amp; People Foundation. These entities are working together to demonstrate a connection between adding trees and reducing crime in under-served neighbourhoods.
We worked in a research collaboration to look at the relationship between urban tree cover and rates of robbery, burglary, theft and shooting in under-served neighbourhoods in Baltimore. After controlling for income, population density, block-scale tree canopy and housing type, we found that a 10% increase in tree canopy corresponded to a roughly 12 percent decrease in crime.
According to Valerie Rupp, director of community greening for The Parks &amp; People Foundation in Baltimore, people are taking back their neighbourhoods. “While crime still exists, there’s been a shift to more minor, less violent crimes,” she says.
<h2>Pride and goodwill in Philadelphia</h2>
Less than 150 kilometres northwest of Baltimore is the city of Philadelphia, another historic metropolis. With a population of more than 1.5 million, Philadelphia also has its share of big-city problems.
Although Philadelphia’s homicide rate is lower than Baltimore’s, the city has one of the highest homicide rates of the country’s ten most populous cities.
The US Forest Service Philadelphia Field Station is working with city groups such as the Parks and Recreation Department and the Philadelphia Water Department to establish the “triple bottom line”, meaning improvements in three broad areas of impact – environmental, social and economic.
In terms of crime reduction, our studies have found that “green” stormwater infrastructure improvements resulted in significant reductions in narcotics possession and theft. According to Philadelphia police detective Hugh Davis, one can feel neighbourhoods changing and becoming safer over time. Davis says:
"It often starts out as a grant program to make landscape improvements, and then residents start to take ownership. It improves neighbourhood pride and goodwill toward the city."
<h2>Developing ‘green courage’ in the inner city</h2>
The theory behind urban greening and reduced crime levels is that when under-served neighbourhoods are made more pleasant, it can result in a healthier sense of community. In turn, it makes those neighbourhoods less hospitable to criminal activity.
In places like Baltimore and Philadelphia, city departments are working with communities to give people what some urban sociologists call “green courage”. This occurs when residents become more willing to work together after seeing improvements in their neighbourhood.
At the end of the day, urban greening is not simply about planting trees. It’s about people working together to make neighbourhoods better places to live.
We are working alongside these efforts, helping to document and provide a scientific basis for the work to spread and continue. For those of us who are working toward these goals, we sometimes wonder: are we planting trees to organise people or are we organising people to plant trees?
The best answer is probably “yes” to both.
J. Morgan Grove is research forester, United States Forest Service, and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/j-morgan-grove-281187" target="_blank">here</a>.
Michelle Kondo is research Social Scientist, United States Forest Service and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michelle-kondo-281190" target="_blank">here</a>.
Both are authors for The Conversation.
The authors wish to acknowledge the contribution of Brian Cooke, an editor and writer for the US Forest Service Northern Research Station, to the writing of this article.
</body></html>

Greening cities makes for safer neighbourhoods

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/65870/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Since settlement, Australian cities have been shaped and reshaped by history, infrastructure, natural landscapes and – importantly – policy.
So, have our cities changed much in the last 30 years? Have consolidation policies had any effect? Have we contained sprawl? Yes, probably and maybe, according to our newly published research.
<a href="/images/2016/10/12/Screen%20Shot%202016-10-12%20at%209.06.15%20AM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/10/12/Screen%20Shot%202016-10-12%20at%209.06.15%20AM.png" alt="">
<h2>Reviving the centre</h2>
The great Australian baby boomer dream of home ownership caused our cities to spread out during the second half of the 20th century. Urban fringes expanded with affordable land releases, large residential blocks and cheap private transport. 
By the 1980s, across Australia’s cities, the urban fringes were ever-expanding. Inner areas had become sparsely populated “doughnut cities”. 
By the end of that decade urban researchers, planners, geographers and economists began to warn of looming environmental, social and housing affordability problems due to unrestrained sprawling growth. 
Governments responded swiftly, focusing policy attention on urban consolidation through programs such as Greenstreet and Building Better Cities. Concerned individuals formed groups such as Smart Growth and New Urbanism to promote inner-city development and increased urban density.
Since this time, large- and small-scale policy interventions have attempted to repopulate the inner- and middle-urban areas. The common policy goal has been to encourage more compact, less sprawling cities. Subdivision, dual occupancy, infill development, smaller block sizes, inner-city apartments and the repurposing of non-residential buildings have all been used.
<h2>Mapping the changes</h2>
In a newly published paper, we map the changing shape of Australia’s five largest mainland cities from 1981 to 2011. 
Across each of these cities, which together are home to 60 percent of Australians, there has been substantial, suburbanisation and re-urbanisation. In the last 20 years this has resulted in a repopulation of inner cities. 
In Melbourne’s case, the return to the inner city has been particularly pronounced in the last decade. Here, the population jumped from around 3,000 to 4,000 people per km². 
<a href="/images/2016/10/12/Screen%20Shot%202016-10-12%20at%209.04.57%20AM.png" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/10/12/Screen%20Shot%202016-10-12%20at%209.04.57%20AM.png" alt="">
Melbourne may well be the exemplar for inner-city rebirth. More than any other Australian city it demonstrates the 30-year turnaround from inner-city decline to densification. 
Between 1981 and 1991 Melbourne became a classic “doughnut city”: population declining in inner areas, density increasing in the middle-ring suburbs, and growth steady in the outer suburbs. For example, in the inner 5km ring there was a decrease during this time of almost 200 people per km². 
From 1991 to 2001, even though growth was still focused on the middle and outer areas, the inner area began to be repopulated. Overall, between 1981 and 2011 there were approximately 1,500 more people per square kilometre living in the inner 5km ring.
Over the last decade, greenfield development, infill and urban regeneration have increased urban density throughout Melbourne.
While the turnarounds in Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth have been less marked than in Melbourne, they are all no longer “doughnut cities”. This means that where people live in these cities has changed. 
Australia’s cities are now more densely populated – and we are much more likely to live in inner areas than we were 30 years ago.
<h2>A result of government policy?</h2>
We can probably attribute the changes in where urban Australians live to government consolidation policies. 
The policy focus throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s was based on incentives to repopulate inner and middle areas. 
Policies were changed from 2000 to increase population density across whole metropolitan areas. State and territory strategic plans aimed to promote urban consolidation, with a focus on the inner city. 
State and territory plans now focus much more on specific zones throughout the whole of the city, including former industrial areas and surplus government land. New housing development occurs within these defined zones, particularly around transport and areas with urban-renewal potential. 
South Australia’s 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide targets growth in “current urban lands”, along major transport corridors and hubs. Similarly, the Plan Melbourne – Metropolitan Planning Strategy plans to establish the “20-minute neighbourhood”, contain new housing within existing urban boundaries, and focus development in new urban renewal precincts.
The map visualisations reinforce the scale of this absolute growth across each of the five major Australian cities over the last 30 years. 
<h2>Have we contained sprawl?</h2>
Our research would suggest urban-consolidation policies have slowed but not prevented sprawl, especially in the faster-growing cities like Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Sydney. 
So, have we reached the point at which our cities are full? How can we accommodate future population growth? And do we need to focus our attention on new urban areas? 
Containing and, more importantly, controlling sprawl may present the next big challenge.
Neil Coffee is senior research Fellow in Health Geography, University of South Australia and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/neil-coffee-301251" target="_blank">here</a>.
Emma Baker is associate professor, School of Architecture and Built Environment, University of Adelaide and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/emma-baker-172081" target="_blank">here</a>.
Jarrod Lange is senior research consultant (GIS), Hugo Centre for Migration and Population Research, University of Adelaide and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jarrod-lange-301835" target="_blank">here</a>.
All are authors for The Conversation.
 
</body></html>

Density, sprawl, growth: how Australian cities have changed in the last 30 years

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Our cities are getting hotter, more crowded and noisier. Climate change is bringing more heatwaves, placing pressure on human health, urban amenity, productivity and infrastructure.
Urban residents naturally want to stay cool. Air conditioning is the usual choice, but it can be expensive to run. Air conditioning also adds carbon pollution, creates noise and can make outdoor spaces hotter.
So what else can we do to manage increasing urban heat? And who has the ability to act?
Urban planners are increasingly involved in developing and delivering urban greening strategies. While it seems like a “no brainer” to green cities, our international research shows that planners are not always comfortable with this idea.
However, green infrastructure – including street trees, green roofs, vegetated surfaces and green walls – is emerging as a viable way to help cities adapt to increased heat. Uptake of these technologies is slowly increasing in many cities around the world.
The Australian government has recognised this trend. An agenda to green Australia’s cities is now in place. Stated aims include managing climate change impacts, reducing urban heat, improving urban well-being and increasing environmental performance.
This urban greening agenda is part of the Clean Air and Urban Landscapes hub, under the National Environmental Science Program.
<h2>Benefits of urban greening</h2>
The broadening appeal of green infrastructure is helped by the fact it offers multiple benefits.
For example, shading from strategically placed street trees can lower surrounding temperatures by up to 6℃, or up to 20℃ over roads. Green roofs and walls can naturally cool buildings, substantially lowering demand for air conditioning. Green infrastructure can also provide habitat for wildlife, recreational opportunities for people, better management of stormwater runoff and improved urban aesthetics.
Hard surfacing, including concrete, asphalt and stone, is common in cities. It can increase urban temperatures by absorbing heat and radiating it back into the air. Green infrastructure can minimise this difficulty as it better regulates ambient air temperatures. Foliage allows local cooling through evapotranspiration, where plants release water vapour into the surrounding atmosphere.
<h2>Why planners are cautious</h2>
Our research examined urban planners' attitudes towards green infrastructure use in Australia, England and Ireland. We found that planners are broadly aware of green infrastructure as an urban intervention. They understand its use, application and capacity to provide multiple benefits, especially in terms of managing urban heat.
The planners we interviewed, while recognising the potential value of green infrastructure, strongly cautioned that delivering the technology can be an uncertain process. The biggest barrier cited was that planning departments are not experienced with green infrastructure.
Put simply, they tend to avoid it because it has not traditionally featured on planning agendas. Like any new planning endeavour, green infrastructure can create institutional, legal, economic, social and environmental challenges.
Some of the biophysical challenges associated with green infrastructure delivery are novel. Choosing appropriate forms of vegetation, for example, may be difficult. Decisions must be made based on prevailing climactic conditions, drainage capacity and species growth patterns.
Will root systems damage buildings or underground utility networks? Might trees topple during storms and damage houses? Are roofs strong enough to support a rooftop garden? Planners may not be able to answer these questions, which creates a need for external experts to advise them.
Our findings also highlight socio-political factors as barriers. These include governance concerns such as the political context in which planning decisions are made.
Management issues also feature. Chief among these are government commitments to budget for green infrastructure delivery and management.
Planners are also wary of public involvement. They know that public sentiment about green infrastructure can be influenced by perceptions of modified access, changed use, or loss.
<h2>What can be done?</h2>
The urgency for providing urban green infrastructure increases as climate change makes our cities hotter. Our research suggests the principal task for planners is to overcome embedded practices and to accept green infrastructure as an emerging but permanent urban feature.
This will not be easy. For example, a decision to use a road easement for green infrastructure may require multiple meetings with other government departments, utility companies and residents. Planners will need to coordinate these, manage stakeholder expectations and ensure cost sharing where necessary.
Legal, economic, social and environmental issues will require innovative solutions.
Planners will increasingly be tasked to deliver green infrastructure in cities. They will need to be clear on its value, be prepared to lead its delivery and learn from new challenges and solutions encountered along the way.
Urban residents all over the world stand to benefit if planners can successfully meet this challenge, particularly as hotter temperatures threaten urban comfort and habitability.
 
Tony Matthews is lecturer in Urban &amp; Environmental Planning, Griffith University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/tony-matthews-234160" target="_blank">here</a>.
Jason Byrne associate professor - Environmental Planning, Griffith University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jason-byrne-6066" target="_blank">here</a>.
Both are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Green infrastructure the hot topic amongst city planners

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has created a new ministry for cities and the built environment. Announcing his decision last month, he said:
Liveable, vibrant cities are absolutely critical to our prosperity. (They are) where the bulk of our economic growth can be found … (and they are) economic assets. (M)aking sure that Australia is a wonderful place to live in, that our cities and indeed our regional centres are wonderful places to live, is an absolutely key priority of every level of government. Because the most valuable capital in the world today is not financial capital … (it’s) human capital.
While the question of what is a “liveable city” inspires endless debate, less thought has been given to making urban planning a more democratic process.
Natural evolution and the birth of urban planning
In the 18th century, one of London’s pioneer police magistrates, Henry Fielding, strove to keep the streets of the city clear of crime and vice. But in the course of his work Fielding also went out of his way to help prostitutes and petty criminals. He understood that the city was made up of all sorts of people with different values and cultures.
Fielding was living in a period when London was experiencing a population boom, going from just over 500,000 in 1700 to 900,000 in the 1801 census.
Today, 54% of the world’s population lives in cities, which have historically drawn people from myriad economic, social and cultural backgrounds. Cities have always been places of integration, intense population pressures, migration flows, cultural interactions and variations in socioeconomic positioning and values.
Fielding was interested in making London a liveable city, although the term would have been anachronistic to him. Yet it appears almost ubiquitous in contemporary policymaking, urban planning and in the public imagination. A liveable city has become the highest form of praise we can give to a city space.
But liveable for whom? The implication is that ordinary people should be able to inhabit cities. Yet how governments generate affordable housing, and even who is allowed to have a say in the planning and development of a city, is often badly developed.
Where does democracy fit in?
Is a liveable city a democratic city? Who gets to participate in the process of governing and shaping a city?
In the early 20th century, modern cities were thought to evolve according to “natural” processes, combining migration, growth and the urban form. Urban sociologists from the Chicago School outlined how cities evolved like living social organisms balancing conflict and co-operation, density, heterogeneity and tolerance. Ernest Burgess even suggested that the very form of the modern city developed in predictable fashion as a set of “concentric rings”, with production and workers’ cottages in a singular inner centre and more affluent suburbs at the extremities.
Such ideas have given way to a more complex depiction of post-modern cities, incorporating multiple (or no) centres, historical communities, development interests and urban planning. Urban planning is seen as an essential technical science. A failure to plan is associated with dystopian images of suburban sprawl, of the “exopolis” without facilities or a civic centre, or of “edge cities” growing like lichen along the intersections of major highways.
Appropriate planning is aimed at building the best cities to enhance quality of life and attract the elite of the global workforce. We strive to find a formula for the most liveable city and potentially top the EIU’s Global Liveability Ranking (which Melbourne achieved in 2015).
Urban planners explore how cities can be sustainable and how a continuous food and water supply can be ensured, but they also deal with concerns about over-population, migration and what happens when poverty is concentrated in certain areas, which can increase the potential for crime.
Cities as economic sites or liveable places
Soon after his appointment, the new cities minister, Jamie Briggs, conveyed his vision of cities as economic sites:
Cities are one of the great drivers of our economy. Most Australians live in our cities and the majority of businesses are based in or around them. They are the engine room of commerce, infrastructure, innovation, the arts, science and development.
While it’s true that historically people have been drawn to cities because of the economic opportunities they offered, such claims disguise both the difficulties for urban migrants and environments that economic opportunities have created, as well as the negative implications for those remaining in rural areas.
Before 1871, migrants from across France settled in Paris as a consequence of its economic opportunities and political importance. The social disconnection implicit in such movement became evident in Emile Durkheim’s 1897 study of French suicide rates and the breakdown in traditional forms of social solidarity.
Migration also played out broader social inequalities across the nation in urban space. People grouped in neighbourhoods based on shared languages and dialects that related to their home regions. Within those districts, rich and poor shared the same buildings, their wealth demarcated by their positioning in the building.
Perhaps this was better for social integration than many modern environments, but a focus on the city as an economic space can lose sight of how cities are made liveable. Social relationships are key to central ideas of safety, belonging and ownership.
In 1903, Georg Simmel described the metropolis as a blasé, rationalised space that alienates people from people and feelings, in that:
… punctuality, calculability, exactness are forced upon life by the complexity and extension of metropolitan existence.
Sixty years later, however, Jane Jacobs defended the city as a myriad of communities in that:
… the trust of a city street is formed over time from many, many little public sidewalk contacts.
What makes the ideal Australian city?
Is it Canberra, which divides public opinion with its low density, its roundabouts and planned streets? Is it Sydney or Melbourne with their high-density cultural vibrancy? Or is it the small country towns, which often appear communal in ways larger cities do not?
We often think of the attachment we have towards cities in emotional terms; we love or hate a place, we feel comfortable or settled in some spaces but not in others. We instinctively speak about cities in terms of their emotional impact on our lives.
Even Wordsworth, renowned for his love of nature and solitude, spoke of his emotional attachment to the city. Reflecting on his first sight of London, he wrote: 
A weight of ages did at once descend
Upon my heart – no thought embodied, no
Distinct remembrances, but weight and power,
Power growing with the weight…
For Wordsworth, as for others then and now, the city inspired a complex set of emotions.
What the new ministry needs to do
First, it needs to recognise the cultural, aesthetic and emotional elements of cities. It needs to acknowledge the importance of cultural activity ahead of the pursuit of commerce and the idea of cities as “economic assets”.
The aesthetic qualities of space are crucial to the notion of a liveable city. These became important in the 18th century with a growing appreciation of the ways that environment shaped the self and emotional behaviours.
To produce “civilised” behaviours in their populace, urban planners laid out wide streets, introduced sewage and flowing water, added street lamps and began to police both the behaviour and cleanliness of the urban environment. This was not just about practical benefits to the population, but reflected a strong belief that surrounding yourself with beauty enabled people to be better versions of themselves.
 
Such ideas remain important to the present. Historians of emotions spend a lot of time thinking about how cities and spaces create emotions, historically but with implications for modern spaces. Urban planning (or its lack) can produce emotions in inhabitants, whether that is the disgust at poor sewage and disease that inspired reform in 18th-century Copenhagen or 20th-century Sydney, the anger and tensions caused by ghettoisation of minority groups, or the political unrest caused by poor housing and overcrowding.
Perhaps most famously, cities have provided “outcast” individuals, such as gay men and lesbians, with a space to create a community, to find affirmation of their feelings and to build pride and political identity. A narrow focus on the city as a driver of the economic, without an appreciation of how the urban shapes those who live within it can act as a challenge to social stability and personal wellbeing.
Historically, the use of space in cities has been a matter of pride, displaying important cultural and architectural landmarks, but also an issue of public health and safety, preventing the spread of diseases, fires and crime. Our historical knowledge of cities can be enormously helpful in informing current ideas about city planning by showing how people have reacted emotionally to city spaces in the past.
The answer to the question of what makes a city liveable is complex and constantly evolving. Because of this we should be insisting on answers about what will be happening to Australia’s cities in the next few decades.
 
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/merridee-l-bailey-196598" target="_blank">Merridee L. Bailey </a>is senior research fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for the History of Emotions, University of Adelaide. <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/amy-milka-200753" target="_blank">Amy Milka </a>is postdoctoral research fellow, Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the History of Emotions, University of Adelaide  <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/craig-lyons-200755" target="_blank">Craig Lyons </a>MSc candidate in human geography, School of Geosciences, University of Sydney  <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/david-lemmings-200749" target="_blank">David Lemmings </a>is professor of history, University of Adelaide  <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gordon-raeburn-143098" target="_blank">Gordon Raeburn </a>is postdoctoral fellow in the History of Emotions, University of Melbourne  <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/katie-barclay-200751" target="_blank">Katie Barclay</a><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/katie-barclay-200751"> </a>is research fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for the History of Emotions, University of Adelaide  <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/roger-patulny-94836" target="_blank">Roger Patulny </a>is lecturer in Sociology, University of Wollongong  <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/thomas-bristow-92779" target="_blank">Thomas Bristow </a>is postdoctoral research fellow, University of Melbourne.
All are authors for The Conversation.
 
</body></html>

Liveable cities: who decides what that means and how we achieve it?

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/65164/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Parklets are popping up everywhere. Cities around the world – and increasingly across Australia from Fremantle to the Fraser Coast – are introducing programs to convert roadside parking spots into more green and sociable spaces.
In Sydney, Waverley Council’s Urban Interventions program received an award for “best planning idea” from the Planning Institute of Australia (NSW) in 2014. The Glebe Chamber of Commerce is running a crowdfunding campaign to turn its pilot parklet into a more lasting installation.
Before parklets there was PARK(ing). In 2005, members of the San Francisco design collective Rebar paid an on-street parking meter for two hours. Rather than park a car, Rebar used the space to create a “park” with turf, a tree, a bench and signs inviting passers-by to sit and relax. Rebar then packed up and returned the space to its former condition.
While the event was not intended to continue beyond the initial two hours, photos and video were rapidly shared online. The images proved inspirational: requests quickly came from people asking how to create their own “parks”. Rebar responded by producing a how-to guide and decided to launch an event that would make a much bigger statement about the use of public space.
<h2>Going global</h2>
In 2006, the first PARK(ing) Day was celebrated with 47 “parks” in 13 cities across three countries. The event grew rapidly, expanding to more than 200 parks in 2007 and featuring in the Venice Architecture Biennale in 2008. By 2011, PARK(ing) Day included almost 1,000 parks in 35 countries.
PARK(ing) Day has spread beyond the event itself. As well as parklet programs, the first of which was introduced in San Francisco in 2010, the day has inspired a number of other activities.
Participants have gone on to develop a range of related events, from the skipsters of Melbourne to the temporary villages of Montreal to the worldwide Better Block movement.
At the core of PARK(ing) Day is an idea about law. Paying the parking meter was seen as a way to access ownership, albeit temporarily, in a city where the means to acquire legal title were beyond the reach of many residents.
Its instigators described this act as creating a “lease”, a property right that brought with it a right to engage in planning, by participating in the development of a vision of what could be and, significantly, in the (fleeting) material creation of that vision.
At first, the vision was for more parks in an area that – according to the city’s own maps – had little green space. In subsequent iterations in cities around the world, PARK(ing) Day participants have claimed and reclaimed the street in diverse and dynamic ways: from croquet greens to community health clinics, libraries to lemonade stands, bike workshops to weddings.
Turning a parking space into a park is a quirky idea, but even in 2005 it was not entirely new. Precedents can be found in many cities over many years: from the installations on California roads by Bonnie Ora Sherk in the 1970s, to the Parking Meter Parties held in Hamilton, Ontario, from 2001, to Ted Dewan’s road witching in Oxford, UK, from 2003, to Michael Rakowitz’s 2004 (P)LOT projects in Vienna, Austria, and Trento, Italy.
Yet none of these precursors succeeded in engaging or inspiring people on such a grand scale.
<h2>The power of a ‘sticky’ idea</h2>
Rebar describes PARK(ing) Day as a “sticky” idea. With very little organisation – almost none in recent years, since Rebar no longer exists – the event has proved extremely durable.
While some participants engage consistently over many years (the Sydney office of  ARUP has built “parks” seven times since 2008), most participate just a few times. PARK(ing) Day continues to attract new participants: North Sydney Girls High School and locals around Australia Street, Newtown, are some of the newest.
The reach of PARK(ing) may be traced to the power of the initial image, or to the success (or luck) of Rebar in connecting with particularly influential people.
More than this, however, a key part of the event’s success is its connection to law. PARK(ing) Day was not presented as a protest, a plea for change, or a proposal for reform. On the contrary, PARK(ing) Day was expressly presented as something already legal. PARK(ing) Day provides a powerful invitation to citizens around the world to rethink the city and their place in it.
Friday, September 16, is the 11th PARK(ing) Day. 
Amelia Thorpe is senior lecturer and Director of Environmental Law Programs, UNSW Australia and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/amelia-thorpe-15408" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

A day for turning parking spaces into pop-up parks

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/65563/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
We shape the city and it shapes us. 
The recent ABC series City in the Sky focuses our attention on the sheer number of people who travel in the air at any one time and the extent of the infrastructure built up to support them. This aerial citizenry is due to double in the next 20 years and with it the global networks, smart technology and urban infrastructure that make it all possible. 
The real provocation of the city in the sky, however, is not just rendering visible the urban worlds that exist on land and sea, above the earth and below. Rather it prompts us to re-imagine both the complex nature and make-up of our habitats, and the role of infrastructure and planning within it. 
This raises new questions about what we imagine to be “the city” – and how we can shape it. 
<h2>The urban shapeshifters</h2>
In the urban age, important international conferences such as Habitat III are seeking to generate:
"… a new urban agenda for the 21st century that recognises the ever-changing dynamics of human civilisation."
The idea of “the city” looms large. There are, it seems, no limits to the prospects and possibilities of technology and human entrepreneurship. These concentrate within the contemporary city: the super structures of the super species in the age of the Anthropocene. 
For Harvard university professor Ed Glaeser, author of the book Triumph of the City, human ingenuity can conquer urban challenges and enable social and economic mobility. 
Others point to the lifeboat qualities and capacities of cities, which will help us navigate the urban challenges related to climate change, population growth and displacement, and resource depletion. 
But has the hubris of economists, urban academics, city planners, engineers and our elected leaders over-emphasised the moment of the city as concentrated urbanisation and big infrastructure projects? Should we instead be seeking to better recognise and understand the “extended” urbanisation processes that are reorganising and transforming the broader urban fabric (that is, worldwide shipping lanes and flight paths, broadband, sea level rise, peak oil, smart technologies)? 
To put it simply, are we thinking too narrowly when we talk about cities? 
The city as shapeshifter poses a genuine conundrum for those who seek to shape urban change. Like a 5D movie on speed, the contemporary city defies conventional boundaries.
<h2>The Australian city unbound</h2>
Australia’s cities are described in national policy as “some of the best in the world”. According to the Smart Cities Plan, Australia’s cities are: productive and accessible; full of talent and investment; agile and flexible; and encouraging of the innovation, jobs and growth on which our national prosperity depends. 
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull stressed earlier this year that, in shaping our cities:
"Planning is absolutely critical. The ad hocery [non-planning] has got to stop."
All Australians are encouraged as part of the Smart City Plan to share their ideas to help determine the new cities agenda. But what does this mean for urban planners, developers, state and local governments, as well as for Australian city residents when so much of what shapes the urban comes from outside the traditional boundaries of “the city”? 
Far from being self-explanatory and straightforward, the contemporary Australian city is changing, yet the processes that shape change in cities are not well understood. This is not a closed policy and planning cycle. And it’s further complicated if notions of what constitutes “the city” are constrained and outdated. 
<h2>Lines of flight</h2>
Urban planners adapt to change in cities and regions, which are in turn transformed by changes in environment, planning and party politics. Change is often imposed on cities (in response to an environmental crisis, for example). 
Sometimes, though, this change is the result of complex politics and negotiations between local, state and Commonwealth governments, or in response to investment interests borne elsewhere. 
For example, the Commonwealth government, in support of an interest in making Australian cities the site for innovation, has signalled the role that urban infrastructure will play in creating jobs and spurring growth.
Urban change, Turnbull tells us, will only be delivered:
"… by addressing the policy and regulatory settings through which cities and infrastructure are governed, planned, funded, constructed and operated."
But this safe policy and regulatory landing requires first the imagination and capacity to shape and plan for the “cities in the sky”. As American academic Joe Feagin noted in The Urban Scene: Myths and Realities:
"Basic conceptions and images of urban life and urban structure are extraordinarily important, since they often shape the ends envisioned, and the means by which those ends are implemented, by those intent on reinforcing or remaking the existing urban scene."
To this end, imagination and planning are central to the critical urban governance of cities. As planning academic Patsy Healey highlights, this entails the three-fold task of: 
1) expanding the collective knowledge base about the changing shape and nature of cities available to our communities, political and otherwise; 
2) enhancing democratic debate; and 
3) developing the skills for conveying to the different members of our communities.
Wendy Steele is associate professor of Urban Policy and Planning, RMIT University and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/wendy-steele-4698" target="_blank">here</a>.
Crystal Legacy is Australian Research Council (DECRA) Fellow and Vice Chancellor's Research Fellow, Centre for Urban Research, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/crystal-legacy-18412" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Cities in the sky: how do we decide where this urban journey is taking us?

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVATION
Despite a pre-election anti-development environment in Sydney there are many quality examples of urban renewal with-in Sydney as well as Singapore, London and New York. Local politicians should learn from these projects.
The Creating Communities Conference attended by over 300 people last Friday demonstrated many examples of how to create quality development that give a positive rebuttal to the anti-development rhetoric that is occurring in the lead up to next year's NSW election.
It was very timely to see so many excellent urban developments from around the world to remind us in Sydney that growth and new developments can add excitement and positive new places for communities to live, work and relax.
Gordon Adams, the Head of Planning at the Battersea Power Station Development Company, explained the importance of political leadership to drive this massive urban renewal project in London. The projects size was large enough to get the London Underground's Northern Line extended to the site and this has generated a ripple effect of urban renewal in the surrounding areas.
Ultimately Battersea (pictured above) will have 3,500 apartments, 15,000 jobs including the biggest Apple office in the UK, parks, child care, restaurants and community facilities.
The combination on metro rail, a centre for jobs and a large number of new homes has created a new city within a city.
Marianne Kwok, Design Director, Kohn Pedersen Fox in New York was the key master planner for that cities major urban renewal project at Hudson Yards over underused railway yards. A new station was added to the New York subway and the famous elevated pedestrian network of the High Line weaves through the site and the buildings.
<img src="https://www.urban.com.au/images/2018/10/17/Hudson.JPG" alt="">
Hudson Yards (pictured above) will have 4,000 new homes, 1 million square feet of office space, three new parks, child care, shops and restaurants and some amazing public art works.
Rahul Mittal, Director Design, Cistri Singapore gave a detailed overview of how similar Singapore was to Sydney in population terms but that Singapore was much denser but still very liveable.
He positioned Singapore as an example of how the balancing of new development with an extensive metro rail network and a strong greening policy can lead to positive results.
The mood at the Creating Communities Conference was very upbeat about how quality new development can add value to the residents and workers in new precincts and how a level of excitement can occur with new stimulating developments.
A number of emerging Sydney urban renewal projects were presented that matched the quality of the international examples.
Dominic Sullivan outlined the rationale behind PAYCE's Melrose Park proposed development, Neil Arckless from Lendlease presented the mixed use precinct of Darling Square. Sasha Kovic and Scott Clohessy from Frasers Property outlined the concept behind the Ivanhoe project that will house social, affordable and market housing as well as a new school and parklands.
The greenfield housing development at Willowdale was presented by Stockland's Sophie Pickett-Heaps along with Stockland's focus on building communities. Toga's Fabrizio Perilli gave an excellent outline of his Surry Hills Village project that carried the laneway culture of the suburb into this new development.
With a multitude of quality urban renewal projects presented from different world cities and from different parts of Sydney there is no doubt that the development industry is making a very positive contribution to the future of urban living.
The current negative debate about over development in Sydney needs to be balanced by the very positive examples of how other cities have passed through this growth phase and by the emerging examples of quality development across Sydney.
The Urban Taskforce calls on all politicians in the lead up to the NSW election next March to take a positive approach to quality new development rather than encouraging the fear of change in their electorates that will create an ant-development attitude to garner short term votes.
Sydney needs politicians that are committed to the long term future of Sydney for future generations. 
Chris Johnson is the Urban Taskforce CEO
</body></html>

cjohnson-8xfqfuuCSq

Political leaders must learn from quality urban renewal projects: Chris Johnson

<html><body><div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
Urban infill developments have the potential to slow urban sprawl and meet the demands of population growth, according to Cedar Woods Properties.
Patrick Archer, Cedar Woods’ state manager said by integrating a range of housing typologies and open spaces, urban infill projects work to create a sense of place and foster community relationships.
“We’re actually achieving about five times the density of the average suburb, but the difference is it’s not in a static high rise apartment,” he said.
“Usually it’s big houses or tiny apartments, but we’ve really focused on a model that includes a range of typologies, achieving densities of between 40 and 50 dwellings a hectare.
“It’s our intention not to detract from these established suburbs, but to add to these communities with a variety of housing typologies that’s appealing and complements the existing architectural character.
“Urban infill sites facilitate this innovation, allowing more people to live in an established and sought-after suburbs close to their work, schools, open spaces and amenities.
"At Jackson Green in Clayton South for example, a mix of detached, semi-attached, attached and townhouses are complemented by 170 apartments ranging from 50 square metre one-bedrooms to four-bedroom family town homes of up to 225 square metres."
Such infill developments include Camberwell in the city’s east, Footscray in the west, and Clayton South in the south east.
 
</div>
</div>
</div></body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

Urban infill developments could slow urban sprawl

<html><body>
SPONSORED POST
If we had a completely blank slate to work with, how would we design our buildings and cities? How different would they be from the environments we have created now?
That was the question posed by JLL and TEDxSydney earlier this year for their Urban Canvas research project, which surveyed more than 200 professionals from 19 industries and conducted full-day workshops to explore issues around workplaces, buildings and cities.
Participants were asked to imagine creating places for people to work, live and play within the construct of a completely fresh slate - the planet Mars in 2050, made habitable for humans. 
The concept of Mars was used to give people a blank canvas and understand what they would create if they didn’t have the limitations of the existing built environment.
The resultant whitepaper – ‘Is humanity the future architect: how human connections will ultimately shape the future of real estate’ - projects a vision of the future where buildings do more than function as places of work – they promote connections between people and nature, whilst enhancing our health and wellbeing.
“The results unanimously focused on human connections and a desire to be closer to nature,” says Richard Fennell, Australian Head of Property &amp; Asset Management for JLL.
“It seems that amongst our condensed and densely populated skylines, the people living and working within them are craving more open spaces, more air, and more natural materials and environments.” 
Participants sought a lifestyle where home and work were more interconnected in a physical sense - promoting concepts such as community workplaces, co-working and flexible work locations - whilst craving to be less connected mentally and emotionally.
This is a response to the recognition that the modern workforce does not ‘switch off’ - workers no longer leave work behind when heading home, and this is acknowledged as negatively impacting mental health.
“Our basic needs and wants remain consistent with what they were 100 years ago,” Fennell says. “We saw five key themes emerge when asking the TEDxSydney Community to design their future, four of these themes focused on human needs.”
Those five key themes are:
<ol>
<li>Human connections</li>
<li>Health and wellness</li>
<li>Nature and human sustainability</li>
<li>Social consciousness</li>
<li>Robotics and artificial intelligence</li>
</ol>
“Throughout our research, certain mega-trends also emerged that might shape how we interact with our urban environment, including robotics, quantum computing, driverless cars and co-working,” Fennell says. “But it will be a desire for authentic, deeper human interactions, health and wellbeing, and a closeness to nature that will continue to dominate the built environment.”
JLL’s Australian Head of Corporate Account Management, Rajiv Nagrath, says the research found that, despite technological advancements and the potential impacts of robotics and artificial intelligence, there was a desire for a future dependent on people, not machines.
For more information, <a href="https://access.jll.com/tedxsydney/" target="_blank">click here</a>.
</body></html>

Urban Development

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Urban Development

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News