AIA (NT) Darwin Mid Suburbs Area Plans

DARWIN MID SUBURBS AREA PLANS Submission to NT Planning Commission Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

SUBMISSION BY

Australian Institute of Architects - NT Chapter The Royal Australian Institute of Architects trading as Australian Institute of Architects ABN 72 000 023 012 Unit 3, 4 Shepherd Street DARWIN NT 0800 GPO Box 1017 DARWIN NT 0801 Australia T +61 8 8936 1820 E nt@architecture.com.au

PURPOSE

This submission is made by the NT Chapter of the Australian Institute of Architects (the Institute) to the NT Planning Commission, in response to the invitation issued under the Darwin Mid Suburbs Area Plans Discussion Paper, September 2015.

At the time of the submission the office bearers of the NT Chapter are Simon Scally (President), Richard Layton (Past President), Andrew Broffman, Alice Chambers, Ross Connolly, Jenny Culgan, Robert Foote, Steve Huntingford, Rossi Kourounis, Tammy Neumann, Katy Moir, Joshua Bellette, Jurse Salandanan. The Chapter Manager of the Northern Territory Chapter is Joshua Morrin.

This submission was prepared by Joshua Morrin, NT & International Chapter Manager, for the Northern Territory Chapter Council.

(Disclaimer: the author of this report is also a resident of Nightcliff)

ABOUT THE INSTITUTE

2

The Australian Institute of Architects, incorporated in 1929, is one of the 96 member associations of the International Union of Architects (UIA) and is represented on the International Practice Commission. The Institute is an independent voluntary subscription-based professional member organisation with more than 12,000 members who are bound by a Code of Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures. The Institute is the peak body for the architectural profession in Australia, and works to improve our built environment by promoting quality, responsible, sustainable design.

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

This submission has been prepared in response to the work currently being undertaken by the Planning Commission, with respect to Darwin’s Mid Suburbs. The Australian Institute of Architects thanks the Commission for the opportunity to contribute meaningfully to the process.

INTRODUCTION

We acknowledge that this is the first in a three stage process, which will culminate in the preparation of an Area Plan. Furthermore, we acknowledge that the terms of this phase of community consultation are set out in the Darwin Mid Suburbs Area Plans Discussion Paper (September 2015). We offer the following comments in review of the high level principles set forth in this document.

PRINCIPLES

Northern Territory Compact Urban Growth Policy Where the Australian Institute of Architects supports the principle of the Northern Territory Compact Urban Growth Policy, and its accompanying concept of “activity centres”, we recognise that how this relates to specific contexts requires individual analysis, and is unlikely to ‘look’ the same from one area to another. So it is that where we can see the model taking the form of a “hub” within the Middle Suburbs, in the context of the Inner Suburbs, by way of contrast, we believe this could equally be realised as a “strip”. We wish to caution that the emphasis on “centres” of activity can be misleading, and for the less well informed, misconstrued as a one-sizefits-all policy. The history of urban form suggests that such policies have a tendency to be misappropriated as a shortcut to easily implementable, but long term inappropriate, “solutions” by those not engaged in their development. We cannot rely on all parties to be so intellectually engaged.

Lower densities/ continuation of existing density

radius 400m

m radius 200

Highest densities are around activity centre/ transport corridor and public transport node

“Hub” and “Strip” models of activity

Public transport node and activity centre

Transport corridor

Density transition zone

Lower densities/ continuation of existing density

radius 400m

m radius 200

Highest densities are around activity centre/ transport corridor and public transport zone

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

Public transport zone and activity strip

Transport corridor

Density transition zone

3

In addition, we provide the following comments in relation to the stated performance criteria: Compact urban growth localities should: •

“take place around existing activity centres and public transport nodes, where dwelling and activity density may already be at its highest”.

Agreed, in principle.

•

“take place along transport corridors that are within 400 metre walking distance from an activity centre”. Agreed, in principle, noting that activity “centres” need not necessarily be purely “centric”.

•

“include a transition zone, where dwelling and activity density will become less intense, in line with the density of the surrounding locality.

This zone is usually 400 metres away from the activity centre and public transport”. Agreed, in principle. However, indexing to the “density of the surrounding locality” may preclude any realisable increase in density. We would argue that the density should be determined not by the surrounding locality, but by the level of intensity associated with the activity centre.

•

“encourage buildings that are in keeping with changes anticipated around an activity centre/transport corridor”. We believe this might be sharpened by clarifying as “building types and uses”.

•

“protect the existing character of areas outside the compact urban growth locality”. Whilst we appreciate the sentiment that this principle seeks to express, we contend that there are areas to which this principle might apply where protection of the existing character may well be the reverse of what is required to promote urban regeneration, eg. former light industrial uses.

More - but how much more?

We acknowledge that the chief impetus behind the current work of the Commission is Darwin’s projected population growth. On the basis of the figures supplied, we estimate that the current population density is in the order of 22 persons/ha, and with the projected increase in density for the Mid Suburbs, will equate to a population density of 33 persons/ha. We wish to point out that, while in the context of Darwin this represents a higher density, in the context of other precedents in the world, this is still relatively low. We reference the current ‘new city’ of Masdar, in the United Arab Emirates, which is designed to accommodate a density of 135 persons/ha, and at the same time promises new measures in terms of sustainability.

Whilst we acknowledge that local cultural expectations place an emphasis on ‘lifestyle’, and rightly so, we submit that this does not have to come at the expense of density. In the context of this Urban Age, one of the primary avenues of sustainability lies in the increased intensity of development in places where there is the opportunity to maximise efficiency of use. We are of the view that the Mid Suburbs are capable of accommodating more - much more - than the quantities currently proposed, and encourage the Commission to be ambitious in their work. A dwelling included in this existing well serviced area is a dwelling saved at the city fringe, where there are few services. Success in this regard is achievable as an exercise in design, which involves a range of disciplines, including architecture.

4

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

To assist in providing a collaborative, interdisciplinary response to the work currently being undertaken by the Planning Commission, the Australian Institute of Architects convened the Darwin Mid Suburbs Design Workshop.

Held on Thursday 19 November, this was attended by 30 people. The workshop was structured around six key themes: Live, Work, Play, Activity Centres, Movement, and Environment. Groups of attendees were asked to consider the study area via each theme, for a short period of time - 6 themes, 6 groups, 3 themes per group (refer Appendix A). At the close of the afternoon all groups came together to discuss the ideas which had been generated in the course of their discussion (refer Appendix B).

Reproductions of the drawings generated are included in Appendix C.

PROCESS

We use the ideas generated in this workshop as the basis of this submission. We articulate these first as a series of key design principles, followed by specific examples within the study area, where such principles might be engaged.

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

5

1. A Satellite City

Unlike the land currently being reviewed as part of the Inner Suburbs, which we read as a natural extension of the city, we believe the Mid Suburbs read far more as a ‘satellite city’. Rather than any act of specific design intent, this appears a natural result of the topography, situated as it is between Ludmilla and Rapid Creeks, and with Darwin International Airport acting as a plug in the centre of metropolitan Darwin’s urban form. Nightcliff, you might argue, is a world unto itself.

This attribute is a potential advantage, and appears to reconcile well with the Compact Urban Growth model. Within the ‘satellite’, there are a number of sub-centres, primary of which are Nightcliff shopping centre, Jape homemaker village, and the Rapid Creek plaza. In many ways, these afford a level of self-sufficiency for the community, and are significant attributes for further development.

6

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

Nightcliff shopping centre is the primary centre within the study area, but it is at present bifurcated into two sub-centres, which have related functions, but poor connections. Nightcliff shopping village, with its key tenant Woolworths, is the natural magnet for public consumption, but with its acreage of carpark between the front door and Dick Ward Drive, a poor contributor in terms of urban design. The old Nightcliff village, on the other hand, is a much sounder presence in terms of urban design. The central mall, host public space for the weekly markets, is a testament to its success in this regard.

2. Intensification around key centres

An increase in population in the wider area will carry with it an increase in demand for places in which to eat, shop, exercise and recreate, as well as local community services. Nightcliff appears the natural location to accommodate many of these expectations.

We note that the existing housing complex, John Stokes Square, appears near or to have arrived at the end of its natural life. This may provide a significant opportunity for connection between the two centres, via an extension of the existing Nightcliff Mall. An appropriate mixed use development that incorporates housing as well as the functions mentioned above could provide a strong community centre. A reinvigorated local public library might provide an ideal location for the community to gather.

Nightcliff Village

Progress Dr. Community Centre + Mixed Use??

Dick Ward Dr.

New Mixed Use??

Mall Extension??

Nightcliff Central??

Nightcliff Shopping Village

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

7

3. Improve primary linkages

At the northern end of Dick Ward Drive, the distance between it and Bagot Rd narrows to a distance of less than 400m. On one side is the primary attractor of Nightcliff Shopping Village (or future Centre) and on the other, the Jape homemaker village, but they are poorly connected at a pedestrian level. In many ways the existing street pattern restricts this, as there are multiple culs-de-sac and limited view corridors. We are of the view that a detailed study of this particular area would be of benefit. It is possible that this area could house a significantly higher number of dwellings, in a location that is highly serviced.

In particular, an emphasis on Progress Drive as a primary linkage would address an area that is currently weak in terms of pedestrian and public transport amenity.

Progress Dr.

er

w Tro

.

Rd

Dick Ward Dr.

Nightcliff Central

Opportunity for increased density well serviced area

Better linkages

Bagot Rd.

Jape Homemaker Village

8

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

There are a number of pivot points in the study area. These are typically road intersections, but owing to the nature of commercial opportunity, tend to coincide with centres of activity. We have identified the following:

4. Pivot points

a. Dick Ward Drive & Progress Drive b. Nightcliff Rd & Trower Road. This intersection looks to be a traffic planner’s nightmare, with what are effectively four points of entry separated by a short run of approximately 50m. One of the issues is that this intersection provides a key opportunity for alighting from public transport on a primary transport corridor, with adjacency to two local centres. We suggest that this intersection might be the subject of a specific design exercise. c. Nightcliff Pool is a natural pivot point, as a the half way mark of the foreshore route. d. Sabine Rd & McMillans Rd. e. Bagot Rd & McMillans Rd. f. Aralia St. shops g. Rapid Creek Shops & Business Village We suggest that each of these might be the subject of detailed investigation as they represent “activity centres” within the study area.

c f

a

b

g

d e

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

9

5. Reinforce/strengthen interfaces

Given the satellite form of the Mid Suburbs, one of the key design principles relates to its interface with a range of neighbours.

Primary to these is the relationship with the water; this is already well enjoyed both as an outlook and as a recreational space, and the relationship should be not only maintained, but enhanced. Part of this should involve continued work toward stablising the sea wall via appropriate native planting, but it should also involve continued upgrade of pedestrian and cyclist amenity, as well as strategies to support community enjoyment and use, as evidenced by the longstanding and successful operation of foodvans.

The relationship with both of the creeks, should be strengthened, and the extent of catchment areas acknowledged and respected. Recreational reserves along their length, in the case of Rapid Creek, should be maintained, and enhanced in terms of amenity.

Likewise the interface with the airport on the southern side of McMillans Rd should be strengthened from the point of view of pedestrian and cyclist amenity.

10

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

The corollary of increased density is reduced space - it is unavoidable. It must therefore be partnered with better use of open space. Where this can be provided, without real impediment, is in the public domain. Too frequently streets are viewed as means for conveying cars only, but their value is just as much for the promotion of public greenery. This is even more important in the tropics, where appropriately selected and located species are able to provide shading to pedestrian walkways, as well as visual delight.

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

6. Streets as “Green Ribbons�

11

CLOSING REMARKS

Ludmilla may have seemed strangely absent from comment in this submission. This is for two reasons. First, that in the design workshop it attracted very little attention (refer drawings in Appendix C), from which it may be inferred that the general view was that it should remain as is, and that none of the projected increase in population should be accommodated there. The second is that, with the corridor beneath the approach vector to Darwin International Airport, it is spatially separated from the other activity centres within the study area. Given the regulations associated with ANEF contours, it will remain so for the forseeable future. We believe that Ludmilla would be better considered as associated with the Inner Suburbs.

We look forward to reviewing the work of the Planning Commission in the next phase of the Draft Area Plans.

END

12

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

APPENDIX A Design Workshop Program

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

13

PROGRAM 12.30 - 1.30 Darwin Mid Suburbs Design Workshop - Scene setting over lunch

Welcome - Simon Scally, NT Chapter President, Australian Institute of Architects Introduction to the Mid Suburbs Area Plans - Gary Nairn, Chairman, NT Planning Commission Workshop overview and structure - Joshua Morrin, NT & International Chapter Manager

1.30 - 2.00

Design Session 01

2.00 - 2.30

Design Session 02

2.30 - 3.00

Design Session 03

3.00 - 4.30

Re-present and amalgamate

14

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

GROUPS 1

2

3

Graeme Suckling Simon Niblock Andrea Nield Desmond Alex Robinson

Adele Mammone Gary Nairn Keith Savage Alice Chambers David Haylock

Fiona Ray Paul Eustance Geoffrey Wells Simon Scally Julia Wannane

4

5

6

Tony Cox Louise Taylor Rossi Kourounis Katy Moir Joseph Sheridan

John Gleeson Lawrence Nield Jo Rees Joshua Bellette Kaitlyn Zeeck

Clare Martin John Berryman Colin Browne Joshua Morrin Michael Holmes

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

15

THEMES activity centres

work

live 16

environment

6 groups 6 themes 3 sessions 3 themes per group

play

movement Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

SESSIONS PER GROUP 1

2

3

Activity Centres

Environment

Work

Work

Play

Live

Live

Movement

Activity Centres

4

5

6

Play

Live

Movement

Movement

Activity Centres

Environment

Environment

Work

Play

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

17

activity centres

where should they be? what’s in them? etc.

18

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

environment

which parts are important? how will we use it? etc.

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

19

where do/should people work? what kind of work will they be doing? etc. work

20

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

where will people play? what kind of ‘play’ wil they engage in? etc.

play

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

21

where do people live? what ‘kind’ of housing might work, where? (eg. single detached, low rise high density, high rise, etc.)

live 22

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

what are the primary routes of movement? for cars? for cyclists? for pedestrians? where are the main connections? etc.

movement Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

23

APPENDIX B Design Workshop - Photos 19 November 2015

24

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

25

26

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

27

28

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

29

APPENDIX C Design Workshop - Drawings 19 November 2015

30

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

31

32

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

33

34

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

35

36

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

37

38

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

39

40

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

41

42

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

43

44

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

45

46

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015

47

48

Australian Institute of Architects December 2015