This article was downloaded by: [University of Western Australia]
On: 28 September 2014, At: 18:25
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Urban Design
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjud20
Charting a Changing Waterfront: A Review of Key Schemes for Perth's Foreshore
Julian Bolleteraa Australian Urban Design Research Centre (AUDRC), Hay St Perth, WA, Australia
Published online: 24 Sep 2014.
To cite this article: Julian Bolleter (2014) Charting a Changing Waterfront: A Review of Key Schemes for Perth's Foreshore, Journal of Urban Design, 19:5, 569-592, DOI: 10.1080/13574809.2014.943703
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2014.943703
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
JournalofUrbanDesign,2014 Vol.19,No.5,569–592, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2014.943703
JULIANBOLLETER
AustralianUrbanDesignResearchCentre(AUDRC),HayStPerth,WA,Australia*
ABSTRACT Twenty-oneyearshaveelapsedbetweenaninternationaldesigncompetition heldfortheredesignofPerth’sSwanRiverforeshoreandthecommencementofconstruction ofasmall,butsignificant,sectionofthethisriver’sedge.Thisextendedperiodofdesign propositionallowsanopportunitytoreflectontrendsinwaterfrontdesigninPerth,and shiftingnotionsofwhatPerthis,andcouldbe,asexpressedbytheproposals.Trends identifiedincludeagrowingappreciationofurbanvalues,increasingaspirationstoproduce symboliccapital,increasingproductionofstylizedurbanimageryandthecorresponding dominanceofthearchitecturaldiscipline.Perth’sforeshorehasbeenuntilrecentlyavast expanseoftypicallyunoccupied,turfedparkland.Analogoustoascaled-upsuburban‘front yard’,itsrolehasbeentypicallysymbolicratherthanfunctional.Assuch,schemesforthe redesignofthisforeshore,andsubsequentpublicreactions,alsotendtorevealaspectsof Perth’scollectiveidentity.Whilethe1991competition-winningschemerecreateda naturalisticlandscapeontheforeshore,laterstategovernment-endorsedschemesin2008 and2011proposedtheurbanizationoftheforeshoreatsignificantdensities.Theserecent schemesreflect,andhaveforged,agrowingdesireforurbanityinPerth.
Introduction
Asaresultofcollatingmaterialforthispaper,weestimatedthatover200proposals havebeenmadeforthePerthforeshoreareasincetheearly1990s.Thisincludes153 proposalsfromaninternationaldesigncompetitionconductedbythestate governmentin1991,proposalsbyCityVision(alocaladvocacygroup)in1988and 2013,proposalsdevisedaspartofacompetitivetenderprocessin2007,proposals fromtheCityofPerth’s‘WhatIf’designcompetitionin2010,andrecommendations madeforthewaterfrontbyJanGehl,alsoin2010.Thisfiguredoesnotincludethe hundredsofstudentprojectsproducedfortheforeshoreaspartofurbandesign studiosheldattheUniversityofWesternAustraliaandatCurtinUniversityover theyears.Thelegacyofthisprolongeddesignprocessisacomprehensiverecordof evolvingtrendsinwaterfrontdesignandchangingnotionsofwhatPerthis,and couldbe,asexpressedthroughdesignsforthewaterfront.
Forthepurposesofin-depthanalysisthispaperwillanalysethreeofthe schemesproducedinthisperiod.Theseschemeshavebeenselectedbecausethey Correspondenceaddress.AustralianUrbanDesignResearchCentre(AUDRC),Level2, 1002,HayStPerth,WA,Australia.Email: julian.bolleter@uwa.edu.au *JulianBolleterwasemployedbyAshtonRaggattMcDougalltoworkonthedesign ofElizabethQuaybetween2009and2011.
werethosethatcameclosesttoimplementation;indeedthethirdoftheseisnow underconstruction.Theschemesincludethe1991internationalcompetitionwinningproposal,producedbyKevinLynch’sMassachusettsenvironmental designfirmCarr,Lynch,HackandSandell,thatproposedtherenderingofthe foreshoreasanaturalisticlandscape.ThesecondisaschemebyMelbourne architectsAshtonRagattMcDougall(ARM)thatproposedthedevelopmentofthe foreshoreatasignificantdensity,andinahighlystylizedmanner.Thethird scheme,alsoproducedbyARM,proposesthedevelopmentofthewaterfrontat lowerdensitiesandinaformpartlyreminiscentofconventionalpost-industrial waterfrontsinAustralia.
Theseschemesarediscussedinrelationtotheirmorphology(formal properties),thedesignideologyembodiedintheschemesandthepublic discoursetheyprecipitated.Themorphologyoftheschemeswillbeunderstood byreviewingthevariousdrawingsandimagesproducedoftheschemes. Thedesignideologywillbeunderstoodthroughareviewoftheliterature concerningthedesigner’sphilosophyandpractice,andascanbededucedby analysingthedesigns.Ofcoursedesignideologyandmorphologyareclosely entwinedandthediscussionoftheseunderseparateheadingsisintendedpurely toprovidegreaterclarity.Thepublicdiscourseprecipitatedbytheschemeswillbe understoodthroughareviewofthelocalmediathathasactedasalightningrod forpublicandpoliticalopinion,andthroughsurveysconductedatthetime.
Thesecriteriaareemployedtoinvestigatetworesearchquestions,namely:
Howdotheseschemesreflectevolvingtrendsinwaterfrontdesignin Perth?
HowdotheseschemesreflectPerth’schangingidentityasacity?
TheextendedperiodofrethinkingPerth’sforeshorehasbeenparalleledby changingideasofwaterfrontdevelopmentaroundtheworld.Theseincludeanew appreciationof‘urbanvalues’(RigbyandBreen 1994,2),theuseofwaterfront redesign,tocreatetheconditionsattractivetoglobalinvestmentinthecontextof increasinglyflexiblecapitalflows(Dovey 2005,11),andtheincreaseddominance ofthearchitecturalprofessionactingasleadconsultantonwaterfrontredesign projects.Thesebroadertrendsinwaterfrontredesigncanallbemapped,to varyingdegrees,throughproposalsforPerth’sforeshore.
BeyondthesebroadertrendstheredesignofPerth’sforeshorealsooffersa lensthroughwhichtoanalysechangingideasofwhatPerthisandperhapscould be.Perth’sforeshore,sincebeingreclaimedfromtheSwanRiver,hasbeenawide expanseofturfedparklandandhasfunctionedsymbolicallyasthecity’s‘front yard’.LikesuburbanfrontyardsPerth’sforeshorehasbeentypicallyabout ornamentaldisplayratherthanactualuse(Hall 2010,29).Assuchthe aforementionedschemestendtorevealaspectsofPerth’scollectiveidentity, particularlyinthecontextofPerth’srecenteconomicbooms,whichhavebrought aboutsignificantsocietalchange.AsKimDoveyexplains‘Thewaterfrontisan edgeofthecityandithasacertainedginess;itisa“front”or“frontier”,a“face”or “mask”ofthecitythatconstructsurbancharacterandidentity’(Dovey 2005,24). ThispaperwillexaminethismaskasarepresentationofhowPerthconstructsits identityasacity.
TheredesignofPerth’sforeshorecanberegardedasanalogouswith Melbourne’sFederationSquaresite(Brennan 2010),whichhasbeenthesubjectof bothinternationaldesigncompetitionsandprolongedandpolarizedcity-wide
debate.However,proposalsforPerth’sforeshorearealsomarkedlydifferentfrom FederationSquare,andindeedtheraftofwaterfrontredevelopmentprojectsthat haveoccurredinrecentdecadesinAustralia;includingMelbourne’sDocklands andSouthbank,Sydney’sDarlingHarbour,Darwin’swaterfront,andthePort Adelaidedevelopment.ThisisduetothefactthatPerth’sforeshorehasneverhad anysignificantindustrialorrecentportfunction;rather,ithasbeensincethelate nineteenthcenturylandscapedpublicopenspace.Whilemostwaterfront redesignsinvolveconversionofanindustrial‘backyard’intoa‘frontyard’ (Kreiger 2004,27),inthecaseofPerth’sforeshoretheexisting‘frontyard’is actuallybeingredeveloped.WiththeexceptionofCanberra’sKingstonforeshore andWestBasinproposal,thissituationisuniqueinAustralia.Thishassignificant implicationsforboththesymbolismofitsdevelopmentandsubsequent communityreactions.
Theimplicationsofthisresearchrelatetotheimportanceofhigh-profile, symbolicallyloadedprojectssuchastheoneproposedforPerth’swaterfrontfor galvanizingcommunitysentimentinrelationtourbandensification,acriticalissue inPerth.Ifindeedthepublic’simageofthecitycanbe‘remade’atwaterfronts,as Marshall(2001a,9)attests,thentheconstructedschemeforthewaterfrontwillhelp tosetthetoneforstategovernmentandCityofPerthdensificationeffortsincentral Perth,butalsoelsewhereinthecity.Indeedforgovernment,waterfrontrenewalis oftenthecentrepieceofmetropolitanpromotionandpartofanoverall densificationagenda(Oakley 2011,222).Vancouver’splanningdirectorLarry Beasleyspeaksofusing‘waterfrontlocationstocreateacompetitiveadvantagefor downtownlivingthatiscapableofoffsettingtheallureofthesuburbs’(Kreiger 2004,37).Perthhasyettoleveragefullytherivertocatalysehigherdensityurban environments,howeverthePerthWaterfrontprojectunderconstruction,withits 1700apartments,isastepinthisdirection.
TheSite
ThecityofPerthisthecapitalofthelargeandresource-richstateofWestern Australia.WhilePerthisthemostremoteurbancentreintheworld,itispresently growingatanextremerate.Thisgrowthhasbeenfuelledbyaseriesofminingbooms thathaveseenPerth’spopulationincreasefrom1.18millionin1991to1.9million peopletoday.Thisgrowthisalso,inpart,duetoPerth’senviablesuburbanlifestyle;it hasadensityofonly3000people/km2 andassuchhasoneofthelowesturban populationdensitiesintheworld.Theprincipalurbannodewithinthissuburban milieuisPerth’scentralbusinessdistrict(CBD),whichissituatedonthebanksofthe meandering,estuarineSwanRiver.
PriortoSwanRiver’scolonizationbyEuropeans,thesiteofwhatisnow Perth’sforeshorecomprisedveryshallowrivermarginsedgedwithdenserush bedsandinterspersedwithsaltmarshes(SeddonandRavine 1986,76).Knownas GumapbythelocalNoongarpeople,thiswasoriginallyafishingareaanditis recordedtherewereNoongarcampsonthesiteatthetimeofcolonization (Hughes-Hallett 2010).TheadjacentPerthWater,or‘Buneenboro’totheNoongar people,wasalsohometohundredsofblackswanswhoswamandrestedon exposedshoalsandsandspits(SeddonandRavine 1986).
Despiteitsrichbiodiversity,sincetheearliestEuropeanoccupationofPerth theforeshorewasdeemedproblematic.First,PerthWaterisshallow,exceptwhere ithasbeendredged,withtheconsequencethatthePerthforeshorewasvery
unsatisfactoryasaportintheearlyyearsofthePerthcolony(Nevill 2007).Assuch Fremantle,andlaterKwinana,becametheportsthatservedtheadministrative andcommercialcentreofPerth(SeddonandRavine 1986,56).Bythe1880s progressiveinfillingofPerth’sadjacentriveredgesbegansoastoprovidethecity withrecreationalspacesnecessitatedbytheperceivedabsenceofanycentral parkland(SeddonandRavine 1986,89).
Furthertorecreationalneedstheriverinelandscapeshadcometoberegarded bymanyasa‘noisomemarsh,amosquito-breedingmorass’(SeddonandRavine 1986)andassuchwereperceivedtobeinneedof‘beautification’viainfillingand turfing.Thisdrivetocreatehandsomeriversideparklandcanbealignedwiththe CityBeautifulmovementinwhichproponentsheld‘idealisticnotionsaboutcivic well-beingandthesocialbenefitsofpubliclandscapesandparks’(Rigbyand Breen 1994,12).Asaresultofthesebeautificationendeavours,by1955thePerth Waterfrontsite,1 historicallyreferredtoastheEsplanade,formedpartofalarger expanseofgenericturfedpublicopenspace(POS),some80hectaresofwhichhad been‘reclaimed’fromtheSwanRiver’smarshybanks(Stephenson 1975,7) (Figure1).Bythelate1960sthePerthWaterfrontsitewasframedtothewestbya sprawlingfreewayinterchangesitereclaimedfromthenowburied‘MountsBay’, thehistoricSupremeCourtGardensimmediatelytotheeast,andPerth’sCBDto thenorth.Asignificantarterialparkway,RiversideDrive,ranbetweenthePOS andtheSwanRiver,disconnectingthecityfromtheriver.
Sinceitsreclamationfromtheriverinthelatenineteenthcentury,the Esplanadehashadalonghistoryasaplaceformajoreventsinthelifeofthecity, bothinpubliccelebrationandinprotest(CityVision 2013)(Figure2).Despitethis, onaday-to-daybasisitwastypicallyunoccupied.Windswept,overshadowedby tallbuildingstothenorthandperiodicallyreclaimedbytheriverinstormevents, theEsplanadeofferedlittleamenitytoencourageitsoccupation.ClintonYabuka describesthereclaimedandturfedexpanseofthesiteashavingbeenviewedfor manyyearsfromtwocontrastingperspectives:‘oneseeingablightofuntenable
1991competitionsiteinorange.
Figure2. TheEsplanadehashadalonghistoryasaplaceformajoreventsinthelifeofthecity,butona day-to-daybasiswastypicallyunoccupiedandbarren. Courtesy:MichalLewi.
vacuousness,andtheotherseeinganidyllicanduntouchablenaturalsetting’ (Yabuka 2008,41).Eitherway,itwaslikeatypicalsuburbanfrontyard,generally unoccupiedbutnonethelessconcernedwithsymbolicdisplay(Hall 2010,16). RecognizingtheuntappedpotentialofthePerthwaterfront,andPerth’sforeshore generally,in1989anurbandesigncompetitionwasconducted,jointlyfundedby theCityandtheState,fortheentireextentofPerth’sforeshore.
TheLandscapeScheme(1991)
TheCompetitionBrief
Thestatedaimofthecompetitionwasto‘canvassthewidestpossiblerangeof ideasandsolutionstotheproblemofacityseveredfromitsriver’(Western AustralianGovernment 1991,22).Despitethetitleofthe‘PerthCityForeshore UrbanDesignCompetition’,thebriefcalledexplicitlyforalandscapeproposal andspecificallyidentifiedthecompetitionasnotbeingan‘architectural competition’(WesternAustralianGovernment 1991).Theovertdirectiveofthe briefforalandscaperesponsecanbeattributedtotheroleofGeorgeSeddonas competitionadvisor.SeddonisareveredfigureinPerthwhoauthoredaseminal book ASenseofPlace (1972)thatdissectedtheSwanCoastalPlain,thegeological unitwithinwhichPerthissited,intoitsconstituentlayersofgeology,soils,plants andsubsequentculturaloverlays.Thebookprovidesacomprehensiveguideasto thebiophysical‘senseofplace’oftheSwanCoastalPlainbutlittledirectguidance astohowarchitecturalformcouldbereconciledwiththislandscape.Itisnot unreasonabletopresumeSeddon’sovertfocusonlandscapeinfluencedthe competitionbrief.
Morphology
Aftermuchdeliberationbytheassessingcommittee,on16June1991thePremier ofWesternAustraliaannouncedthatKevinLynch’sMassachusettsenvironmental designfirmCarr,Lynch,HackandSandellwasthewinnerofthecompetition (Figure3).Thewinning,andcommended,schemeswereovertlylandscape compositions,nodoubtreflectingthebriefandthejudgingpanel.However,there were‘protests’againsttheovertlandscapefocusencouragedbythecompetition brief.LocalPerthfirmDonaldsonWarnproposedtheurbandevelopmentofa significantsectionofPerth’sforeshorearoundageometricinlet,amovewhich waspremonitoryoftheschemenowunderconstruction.
ThewinningCarr,Lynch,HackandSandellschemedeferredtothePerth region’sendemiclandscapetoinformtheirnaturalisticscheme.Broadswathesof landweredesignatedas‘WesternAustralianGardens,NaturalRiverine Landscape,HistoricGardensBio-Exchange’and,oneofthefewbuildings proposedontheforeshore,an‘EnvironmentalLearningCentre’(WestAustralian Government 1991).Asignificantpublicgestureincludedagrandcurvingjetty,the ‘GrandCrescent’,whichprovidedaviewbacktotheskylineofPerthoverthe water.A‘SwanIsland’alsoformedanestingareaforthelocalblackswans. Inaddressingtheperceiveddisconnectionbetweenthecityandriver,thedesign teamproposedtoexcavateasignificantsectionofLangleyParktocreatethe‘Old
Figure3. The1991competition-winningschemebyCarr,Lynch,HackandSandell.Thescheme addressedthedisconnectionbetweenthecityandriverbyexcavatingasignificantportionofLangley Parktocreatea‘creek’attheedgeofthecity.AsperLynch’surbantheory,theschemeretainedthe clearlydefinededgeconditionbetweentheurbanformofPerth’scentralbusinessdistrict(CBD)and thelandscapeoftheforeshore. Courtesy:CityofPerth.
ShoreCreek.’Theaimofthiswastobringtheriverbacktotheedgeoftheexisting citystructure,ratherthanadvancingtheurbanformofthecityitselftotheriver’s edge.Thescheme’sretentionofthelegibilityoftheurbanedgeofthecitycanbe partlyexplainedintermsofLynch’surbantheory.
DesignIdeology
Lynch,inhisseminalbook TheImageoftheCity (1960,91),identifiesthe opportunityofforming‘ournewcityworldintoanimageablelandscape:visible, coherentandclear’.Hereferstothislegibilitybeingachieved,inspatialterms,by elementssuchas‘paths,edges,districts,nodesandlandmarks’(48).Ofthese elements,the‘edge’wasmostdominantintheexistingstructureofPerth’s foreshorein1991.Infactthethenwell-definededgebetweentheurbanformofthe cityandthegreenbeltoftheforeshoresubscribedtoLynch’spropositionthatan edgegainslegibilityifitis‘laterallyvisibleforsomedistance,marksasharp gradientofareacharacterandclearlyjoinstoboundedregions’.Inkeepingwith thisphilosophy,theCarr,Lynch,HackandSandellschemedidnottransgressthe existingclearlydelineated‘edge’conditionbetweentheurbanformofPerth’s CBDandthelandscapeoftheforeshore.Perhapstherewasanattempttoemulate theChicagolakeshorearea,whichLynchcitesinthisrespectasa‘magnificent exampleofavisibleedge,giganticinscale,thatexposesandentiremetropolisto view’(66).ItseemedthatCarr,Lynch,HackandSandellwerekeentomaintainthe distinctedgeconditionsbetweenbuiltformandlandscapethatpresumablyaided Perth’scitizensintheirmentalimagingofthecity.Indeed,tofurtherthisend,the schemeproposedagrandcurvingjettythatallowedviewerstogazebackatPerth skylineinonecoherentview.
WhiletheCarr,Lynch,HackandSandellschemesawthecity’surbanedgeto theforeshoreremainunchanged,theCityBeautifullandscapeoftheforeshore itselfwassignificantlyaltered.Thisgenericgreenbeltwasexcavatedtoexpressthe morphologyoftheoriginalshorelineandreplantedtorepresentthewider biodiversityoftheSwanCoastalPlain.BonnieFisherextolstheimportanceof inscribingtheuniquecharacteristicsofburiednaturalsystemsintowaterfront design,astrategythatiscentraltotheCarr,Lynch,HackandSandellscheme: themostengagingbuiltelementsontheshorelineretaintheessential qualitiesofwhatcamebefore,andtreatnaturenorasanadversarybutas anaccomplice ... Drainagesthatwerecovered,beachesthatwerefilled in,shorelinesthatwerestraightened:allhavethechancetobereclaimed andredefined.(Fisher 2004,49)
Thisdesiretobreathenewlifeintotheseburiednaturalsystems,whileprobably wellintentioned,alsocouldhavebeenanattemptbyCarr,Lynch,Hackand SandelltoappealtoSeddon,thecompetitionadvisor.
PublicDiscourse
Asperhapscouldbeexpectedofsuchagenerousupgradetoapubliclandscape, 81%ofpeoplesurveyedwereinfavourofredevelopingtheforeshoreand71% thoughtthatthewinningentrywas‘agoodbasisfortheproject’(Gregory 2009, 15).IfMarshall’sassertionthatthatwaterfrontstendto‘expresswhatweareasa culture’(Marshall 2001a,4)isaccepted,thentherelativepopularityoftheCarr,
Lynch,HackandSandellschemereflectsacitizenrywhowascomfortablewith Perth’ssprawlinglandscapecondition.AsYabukadescribes,Perth’surban structurehasnotgenerallyencouraged‘theintenseinteractionofitscitizens,but ratherhassupporteda“lifestyleofquietcontentment”’(Yabuka 2008,41). Thissituationalsoextendedtoatraditionofobservingratherthanengagingwith theSwanRiver(Yabuka 2008).Indeed,thiswasnottheRiverSeine,theurban imageoftheYarraRiveradoptedbyMelbourneinthe1980s(Doveyand Sandercock 2002,154);thiswastheriverasanArcadianescapefromthecity,a placeoutsidetheordinarydominionofurbandwellers(Fisher 2004,63).This perceptionoftheriverisconfirmedbya1985surveyconductedbytheCityof Perthtogaugetherelativepopularityofvarious‘activity,environment,and movement’strategiesfortheforeshore(CityofPerth 1985).Thissurvey establishedthatthepublichadfavoured‘environments’ontheforeshore,which included‘opengrassedfields,informalparklandandnaturalisticriveredges’ (WesternAustralianGovernment 1991),andthattheystronglydisapprovedofa ‘livelywaterfrontatmosphere,waterfrontbuildings,orbuildingsonjettiesor marketsandsouvenirstalls’(CityofPerth 1985)(Figure4).Withrespectto ‘movement’,theystronglydislikedcarparks,deckedorotherwise,andthe wideningofroads.Whereroadswereunavoidabletheyfavouredthembeing swathedingreenery(CityofPerth 1985).Withrespectto‘activity’,thepublic stronglyfavouredjoggingandcyclingtrails,butstronglydislikedmessierand livelieractivitiessuchasfunfairs,marketsandsouvenirstalls,crafts,andwater playgrounds(CityofPerth 1985),whichinterferedwithanArcadianconception
Figure4. CommunitypreferencesastothepotentialdevelopmentofPerth’sforeshore.Thebarsatthe bottomofeachimagerelateto:1,likealot;2,like;3,don’tmindonewayortheotherorcannotdecide; 4,dislike;and5,dislikestrongly(WesternAustralianGovernment 1991). Courtesy:CityofPerth.
oftheforeshore.Inessencethesurveyresultsindicated‘thepublicwantedthe spacetostaymoreorlessthewayitwas;agreenbeltdelineatingthecityandriver [ ... ]’(Westbrook 2008,44).
Whiletheimplementationofthecompetition-winningschemeultimately becameboggeddownwithcontractualissues,itsdemisecouldbeattributedto otherfactors.First,poweroverthedevelopmentandmanagementoftheforeshore restedwithanumberofdifferentauthorities(Gregory 2009,15),asituationthat hamperedearlyimplementationefforts.Furthertothis,giventhenegligible residentialpopulationoftheadjacentCBD,atthetimetherewouldbescarcely enoughpeopletooccupytheparkoutsideofmajoreventslikePerth’sannual fireworks‘Skyshow’.AsNigelWestbrookidentified,withoutanadjacenturban residentialpopulation‘theoutcomewillbeatawdry[ ... ]scrapingofsuperficial urbangestures,fuelledbyshort-termtourism,withoutsubstance’(Westbrook 2008,44).However,inthelong-termtheproposedriversideparkwouldhave providedasignificantamenityfortheprojected45,900peoplewhowillliveinthe CityofPerthby2026(MetropolitanRedevelopmentAuthority 2013b).Regardless, in1991theissueofanegligiblepopulationextendedtothewaterfront’spotential activationandalsoastohowitwouldbefunded.Thepresumptionwasthatdue toanabsenceofsignificantprivatedevelopmentopportunities,theprojectwould needtobefundedentirelyoutofthepublicpurse.Unfortunately,bothCity Councilandgovernmentresourceswerelimitedatthetime.TheLabor Government,marredbytheexcessesofcorruptionscandals,fell,andthescheme wasscrappedbythenewlyelectedLiberal-NationalPartyGovernment(Gregory 2009,15).Thuswhiletheschemewaswellalignedwithpublicsentiment,it ultimatelyfounderedduetoaprevailingperiodofeconomicuncertaintyand politicalchange(Gregory 2009,16).
TheCircleScheme(2008)
WiththedemiseoftheCarr,Lynch,HackandSandellproposal,theforeshore remainedinastateofstasisdespiteaflurryofnewproposals.Theseincluded masterplansproducedbytheCityofPerthin2001and2005,andaschemebythe stategovernmentin2006.In2007theOfficeoftheGovernmentArchitect,in associationwithLandCorp(thestatedevelopmentagency),calledforexpressions ofinterestandaselectionpanelshort-listedfivearchitecturalteams.Thoseteams wereaskedtopursuetheirdesignideasinaspiritofopencompetitionand subsequentlyAshtonRaggattMcDougall(ARM),oneofAustralia’smost innovativearchitecturalfirms,inconjunctionwithRichardWeller,waschosen. Theselectionofanavant-gardearchitecturalpracticetoleadconsultantsonthe PerthWaterfrontrepresentedashiftawayfromtheplanning-drivenapproaches oftheCityofPerthin2001and2005towardsanarchitecturalfirmthatcould deliverastylizedimageforthewaterfront(Dovey 2005,13).
Morphology
Whilepastdesignsforthesitehadbeen‘stymiedbyaprofoundscepticismtoward verticalinfilldevelopmentingeneralandsentimentalitytowardtheexistinglarge openspaces’(Weller 2009,357),theARMschemeproposedthedevelopmentof theEsplanadeatahighdensityandassuchbroketheperceivedlegibilityofthe lineofexistingurbanformdemarcatingthecity’sedge(Figure5).Thisprecinctof
ARM’sCircleScheme.TheIndigenousculturalcentrewaslocatedtotheleftofthe‘River Circle’inlet.OppositeisthetalltowerthatprovokedcomparisonswithDubai.
high-densityurbandevelopmentwastobestructuredaroundtwosignificant publicgestures.Thefirstconsistedofaexcavatedcircularinlet,the‘RiverCircle’, whichwould‘enfold’theriverinthecityinaninlet.TheRiverCirclewasscaledto matchtheWesternAustralianCricketAssociation(WACA)ovalinEastPerth,and wasdescribedasalludingtotheAboriginalflagandtoiconsoftheIdealCity (Raggatt 2008).Setwithintheframeofthe‘RiverCircle’wastobe‘SwanIsland’, theblackswanbeingalong-timesymbolofWesternAustralia.Thesecondgesture consistedofEsplanadeSquare,aformalspacethatwouldprovideforthe continuationofmanyoftheciviceventsthathadhistoricallyoccurredon theEsplanade.AniconicIndigenousculturalcentreformedafocalpointfor thescheme,juttingoutintotheSwanRiverandprovidingaculturalanchorforthe scheme.ThisproposalreferencedthehistoricalrolethatPerth’sforeshoreplayed asanentrypointforimperialoccupancyandtrade(OakleyandJohnson 2012,341).
TheCircleSchemeinmorphologicaltermsreferencesanearlier1996proposal preparedbyARMfortheMelbourneDocklandssite.Thisvisionsetupadramatic contrastbetweenthenewDocklandsandtheoldcitywherebythetraditional
imageofthecitywas‘destabilised,melted,stretchedandinflected’(Dovey 2005, 141).AsDoveydescribed,thereisasenseoftheexistingcity‘literallyturninginto water’inthenewDocklands.ThefluidityofurbanformintheARMDocklands proposal‘extendedtocurvilinearstreetsandbuildingswithkidney,cylinderand ribbonshapesthatloop,foldandtwistinthreedimensions[ ... ]’(Dovey 2005, 141).Whilelessextreme,themorphologyoftheCircleSchemecertainly contrastedwiththeexistingcitygridofPerth’sCBD.Asthecitygridreached downtotheriveritwarpedaroundthecircularinletandmorphedintoanorganic extensionofurbanformandlandscapealongtheedgeoftheexistingfreeway interchange.ThefluidnatureoftheCircleSchemewascertainlydeliberateand reflectedtheuseofavirtual,computer-driven,‘generative’toolinthedesign process.Inproceduraltermstheripplingeffectsofavirtualdropofwaterwere modelledinthree-dimensional(3D)softwareandusedtodeterminethe geometriesoftheriver’sedge,pavingpatternsandevenbuildingfootprints.
DesignIdeology
TheARMschemeforthewaterfrontcanbeunderstood,ideologically,inthe contextofARM’seclectic,stronglytextual,post-modernarchitecturalpractice (Dovey 2005,143).WhiletheurbanframingoftheCarr,Lynch,HackandSandell scheme,ifnotthelandscapetreatments,couldbebroadlyconsideredaspartofthe rationalandobjective‘designmethodologymovement’(Gelerntner 1996,279),the ARMschemecouldbeconsideredtobealignedwiththemovementof‘postmoderneclecticism’inwhichdesigners‘rummagedthroughhistory,selected fragmentsofforms[ ]andcollagedthemtogether’(Gelerntner 1996,279).ARM buildings,suchasStoreyHallinMelbourneandtheNationalMuseumin Canberra,arecodedwith‘multiplearchitectural,local,historicalandpopular references’(Dovey 2005,143).Theirworkisoftentingedwithcynicism,a ‘deconstructiveresistancetosingularmeanings’and‘adifficultbeautyinthe challengingtraditionoftheavant-garde’(Dovey 2005,143).WiththeCircle SchemetheARMavant-gardearchitecturalideologybecomesextendedtothe scaleofurbanfragmentofthecity.Atthisexpandedscalefunctionalandspatial considerationswerealsonecessarilyatthecoreofthescheme;however,the schemerepresentedawillingness,newtoPerth,toengagewiththesymbolic, stylisticandsculpturalpotentialofurbanformatasignificantscale.
PublicDiscourse
WhiletheurbanityandsymbolismoftheCircleSchemerepresentedadeparture fromearliervisions,italsoreflectedagrowingawarenessofPerth’srelationship withitsglobalcontext.AsWellerexplains,inthedecadeleadinguptotheCircle SchemeproposalPerthhadbecome‘exceptionallyself-conscious.Aboutits image,aboutitsgloballiveabilityranking,aboutwhybrightyoungthingstendto leaveand,mostnotoriously,abouthowtoshakeoffthe“Dullsville”tagthatits citizensregrettablyassigneditinapiqueofself-flagellation’(Weller 2010,38). Perth’sself-consciousnesswasparticularlyevidentintheCircleSchemeforthe waterfront.
OfcoursethissituationwasnotuniquetoPerth;redevelopingDarwin’s waterfrontwascalculatedto‘shiftalong-standingperceptionofitasabigcountry towntothatofatropicalcityofinternationalrenown’(Oakley 2011,234).Abelief
thatMelbournewasbecominga‘backwater’wasacompellingnarrativedriving theDocklandsproject(Oakley 2011,234).AsSusanOakleyidentifies,‘increasingly theroleandpracticeofurbangovernanceisdirectedtowardsenhancingthe competitivecapacityofcitiesinattractingandretainingglobalcircuitsofcapital andpeople’(Oakley 2011,222).Waterfrontrenewalsareoftenpartofthisprocess throughtheir‘Imagineering’into‘placesofspectacle,symboliceconomyand cosmopolitanliving’(LehrerandLaidlely 2009,799).Consciouslyorunconsciously theCircleSchemeappearedtoattempttogarner‘symboliccapital’forPerthwithin thisglobalcontext.Whilethe1991landscapeschemerepresentedLynch’sideaof an‘imageofthecity’asa‘formofurbancognition’(Dovey 2005,12),the2008Circle Schemeembodiedthe‘imageofthecity’asaformofglobalbranding.
Whiletheschemewasinitiallypopularwiththepublic,2 theimageofPerth steppingboldlyontotheglobalstage,however,wasnotembracedbyall;muchof thecritiqueoftheschemecentredonitslackofperceivedconnectiontoplace. Inthiscritique,carriedoutinthepopularmedia,theschemewaspejoratively referredtoas‘DubaiontheSwan’(Thomas 2012).Thisstereotypewas perpetuatedbythe‘SwanIsland’,whichwasdesignedtobereadfromGoogle Earth;theobviousreferencebeingtoDubai’slogo-drivenurbanismof‘ThePalms’ and‘TheWorld’developments.Inanotherwisesupportivearticle,RuthDurack describedthe‘generalconsensusseemstobethat(thescheme)isembarrassingly kitsch,withmorevituperativecriticsevensayingitisemblematicofaderivative andDisneyesquedevelopmentthatmocksthenaturalbeautyoftheriver’(Durack 2008,26).
Theindicativeurbanisminthepubliclyreleasedrenderswasalsohigh,and sculptedintoorganicformsreminiscentofDubai’s‘starchitecture’(AMO,Reisz, andOta 2007).ThisservedfurthertoconfirmtheassociationwithDubai,atleast inthemindsofthecritics;thisoccurredatapointintimewhenthepopulationof PerthwereperhapsparticularlysensitivetocomparisonswithDubai,given Dubai’sspectaculareconomiccollapseandPerth’ssimilarrelianceonmineral resources.AsDoveyattests,‘Symboliccapitalisafixedresource,azero/sum game.Thereisonlysomuchdistinctionandprestigetobedistributed.Ifeveryone gets“distinctive”architecture,ifeverycityisdistinctive,noonewinsthesymbolic capital’(Dovey 2005,19).FairlyorunfairlythesymboliccapitalthattheCircle Schemeattemptedtoproducewaserodedbytheperceptionthattheforms,from whichthesymboliccapitalwasderived,hadalreadybeenproducedelsewhere.
Thestylingoftheurbanformalsotendedtopolarizereactionstoit. Thecomposition,atleastinthepublic-releasedrenders,appeareddesignedasan architectural‘setpiece’apparentlymadebyasinglehand.Theuseofthevirtual generativetooltendedtoreinforcethisperceptionthatthewaterfronthadasingle author.Whileperhapsdesirableatthearchitecturalscale,thisrunscountertothe nowwell-establishedbeliefthatwaterfronts‘needtobedesignedasaseriesof creativeandwell-plannedinterventions,intheformofnumerousbuilding projects,thattakeshapeoveralongperiodoftime’(Fisher 2004,52).Indeed, comprehensiveschemesdesignedbyasinglearchitectwerediscreditedbyearly urbanrenewalprojects(Gordon 2004,88).Ofcoursethisperceivedissueofthe CircleSchemecanbelargelyattributedtorepresentationratherthantothedesign itself.Whilethepubliclyreleasedrendersshowallthebuildingsconformingtoa consistentlanguage,itcouldbeexpectedthatinlaterstagesoftheprojectmultiple architectswouldhavebroughtdifferentstylisticapproachestothedifferent architecturalprojects.
Theheightofthebuildings,particularlythetalltower(inexcessof50storeys) wheretheRiverCirclemettheriver,alsoalienatedsupportforthescheme.While withrespecttoovershadowingitmadesensetolocatethetallesttowersalongthe water’sedge,shadowbeingcastoverwaterandnotpublicspace,thistowerin particulartappedintoPerth’suneaseabouthigh-densityurbanformonitsriver edge.Thisuneaseemanatesfromavarietyofsources.Certainlytheriveris perceivedtobeapublicassetandtheapparentmonopolizationofitsedgefor privatedevelopmentisregardedasanaffront.Well-knownDanisharchitectJan Gehlespousedtheneedfora‘tightblocklayout’and‘humanlyscaled’buildings onthePerth’swaterfrontinareportfortheCityofPerth(GehlArchitects 2009,82).Giventherelativeself-consciousnessofPerthatthetime,manywould havebeenloathtoignoretheadviceofanesteemedinternationalexpert.Thereis alsopotentiallyanunconsciousdynamicatplay.InWesterntraditionsof philosophyandmythology,waterhasacomplexsetofmeanings:life,fertility,and healingandregeneration(23).Inpsychoanalytictheory,waterissymbolicofthe unconscious(Dovey 2005,23),andtheSwanRiver,fromaWesternperspective,is associatedwithaboriginality.Indeedthelocalindigenouscreationmythofthe serpentineWaugalwhoformedtheSwanRiver(Giblett 2007,34)iswellknown. Theimpositionofatowerthatcanbeseentosymbolize‘force,malefertility, masculineviolence’(Dovey 2005,192)withintheSwanRiver’srichveinof associationswasformanyantagonizing.
Whiletheheightandstylingoftheurbanformtendedtoalienatelocal supportforthescheme,publicacceptanceoftheschemewashamperedby perhapsmorefundamentalfactors.Significantly,whileotherAustraliancities haveproducedstylizedurbanewaterfrontsthatareorientedtowardstheglobal audiencesuchasSouthbank(DoveyandSandercock 2002)andFederationSquare inMelbourne,MelbourneDocklands,PortAdelaideWaterfrontandtheDarwin waterfront(Oakley 2011),alltheseprojectsemergedfrompollutedindustrialsites (Oakley 2011,222).Assuchthepopulacetypicallyhadminimalattachmentto suchsites.Indeed,ifpollutedindustrialriverscouldbecleanedandadjoining sitesremediatedforthepurposesofcreatingrealestateandpublicopenspace, thenthiswas,fromthepublic’sperspective,awin–winsituation.GiventhePerth waterfrontsitewasnotparticularlypolluted,andtheriver’sailinghealthisnot duetoindustrialfactors,therewaslittleabilitytoemploya‘clean-up’toleverage communitysupport.TheissueconfrontedbythePerthWaterfrontdesignteam wasthatthisvisionwasbeingwroughtfroma(typicallyunusedbutnonetheless historic)sliceofpublicopenspace,asituationthatfuelledthecontroversy surroundingthescheme.AsJohnSymeofthehighlycriticaladvocacygroup CityVisiondescribedatthetime:
SouthBank,DocklandsandDarlingHarbourwereallrundown underutilisedareas.[ ]Bycontrast,Perthistakingitsoneandonly heritage-protectedriversideparkland,thedresscircleofourcity,digging itupandcreatinganover-intensivedevelopment,alltosupposedly activatethecity.(CityVision 2013,9)
Theperceivedpro-developmentnatureoftheschemealsotappedinto sensitivitiesresultingfromaprolongedeconomicboomthatPerthwas experiencing.WhilethisboomresultedinPerth’spopulationrisingexponentially, italsoledtogrowingpainsintheformofextremehousingaffordabilityissuesand perceivedtrafficcongestion(StolperandWyatt 2012).ThetendencyforthePerth
Waterfrontdevelopmenttobecritiquedassynonymouswiththeboomitselfis neatlyencapsulatedbyoneofARM’sdirectors,HowardRaggat:
Someonewillsay,‘Butwhereistheaffordablehousing?Whereisthe hospital?Whereistheschool?Whereisthechildcare?’Whereindeed! ButisPerthForeshoretheplaceforeverything?Wehavenotenvisaged thisplaceastheideologicalresponsetoallPerthafflictions;instead,we hopetogivethecityasourceintheSwanRiver,togiveitrootsatthe water’sedgeandtomakeaplaceforeveryone,aplacetolove.
(Raggatt 2008)
Despitesuchprotestations,thePerthWaterfrontproposalbecamealightningrod fortheissuesbeingfeltatametropolitanscale,andassuchmuchofthecritiqueof theschemecanbereadasapplyingtobroaderPerth.Inessence,theschemefor thewaterfrontposedamuchlargerquestionofhowPerthvieweditselfinthe contextofaboomingeconomyandextremepopulationgrowth.AsLeeStickells, lecturerattheFacultyofArchitecture,DesignandPlanning,UniversityofSydney, describes,ontheonehand,somesectionsofthecommunityviewedthisasan opportunityforPerthfinallytobe‘inapositiontosootheitslong-held,aching desiretofeellike,andberegardedas,a“real”city’(Stickells 2008,42).Forothers thehighlyurbaneandgloballyorientedschemewasanaffronttoPerth’sprized suburbanlifestyleandantitheticaltoPerth’s‘uniquesenseofplace’(CityVision 2013,15).
TheseissuesthatsurroundedtheCircleSchemeultimatelyprecipitatedits demise.Withachangeofstategovernmentin2008theschemewasscrappedand thenewlyelectedConservativePremier,ColinBarnett,announcedthatanew proposalwouldbesought.
TheRectangleScheme(2011)
In2009PremierBarnettannouncedthatanew‘scaleddown’schemeforthe waterfrontwouldbeconstructed:‘TheGovernmentdoesnotwanttoimposeyet anothergrandvisionontheWAcommunity.Thisisamoremodestconceptthat showsaground-scaledepictionofwhatcouldbedeveloped’(Rondganger 2009). Barnettsaidhisplansprovidedforgreaterpublicaccesstothewaterfront,while thepreviousgovernmentwantedtodevelop‘monuments’thatblockedoffthe riverfromthepublic(StaffReporter 2009).Despitetheperceivedexcessesofthe previousscheme,theoriginaldesignteamofARMandWellerwasretainedto designthescheme,withtheprovisothattheoldschemewasforgottenandthatan entirelynewschemewasdesignedaroundarectangularinlet.Barnett’s conservativeleaningswerereflectedinthe2012decisiontonametheproject ElizabethQuayinhonourofQueenElizabeth.
Morphology
Thisscheme,whichisnowunderconstruction,isstructuredbyalargerectangular waterbodywithacontinuouscircuitouspublicpromenadebeingcompletedby anislandandaseriesoftwobridges(Figure6).Goneinthisimageisthe‘logo skyline’oftheCircleScheme,replacedinsteadwithacomparativelytame assortmentofbuildingswithanotionalheightlimitof36storeys(Metropolitan RedevelopmentAuthority 2012,26).Thesebuildingsareplannedtoyieldsome
Figure6. ARM’sRectangleSchemewiththesignificantpublicspacesof‘NewRiversidedrive’and ‘TheLanding’flankingthenorthern(top)edgeoftheinlet.Thedesignteamalsoaddressedthe perceivedgraphicexcessesthathadprovencostlyforthepreviousproposal.Gonewerethesultry eveningimagesofthe‘DubaiontheSwan’scheme,replacedwithperpetuallysunnyrendersthat showanuncharacteristicallyblueSwanRiverand‘ghosted’buildingsthatcastlittleornoshadows. Courtesy:ARM.
87,000m2 ofresidentialdwellings(approximately800apartments),200,000m2 of officespace,25,000m2 ofretailspaceand400hotelrooms(Metropolitan RedevelopmentAuthority 2013a)makingitverymuchanofextensionofPerth’s CBDland-usecharacter.
WhilethecircularinletofthepreviousschemealludedtotheAboriginalflag andiconsofthe‘IdealCity’(Raggatt 2008),therectangularformoftheinletappears toreflecttherobustorthogonalformandscaleof‘honest’post-industrialAustralian waterfrontssuchas,thedeceptivelynamed,CircularQuayandMelbourne Docklands.Inaccordancewiththisdesignlanguage,theRectangleSchemealsois muchmoresubservienttotheexistingformofthecitythantheCircleScheme,the existingstreetgridbeingextendeddirectlytothewater’sedge(Metropolitan RedevelopmentAuthority 2012,26).TheIndigenousculturalcentre,whileshown ontheinitialpressreleaseimagesfortheRectangleScheme,wasnotincludedinthe firststageofworksontheprojectandassuchitsfateisuncertain(Bevis 2013).
TheRectangleSchemealsodiffersfromtheCircleSchemewithrespecttothe absenceofformallandscapedpublicspaceforholdingceremonialevents,these beingrelocatedtotheneighbouringSupremeCourtGardens.Thepromenade encirclingtherectangleinletisnonethelesspunctuatedwithexpandedpublic areas.Theseinclude‘NewRiversideDrive’,asharedpedestrianandvehicular zonethatcanbeclosedoffforpublicevents,‘TheLanding’,aterracedareathat willprovideinformalseatingforlargegroupsofpeople(upto7000)toattend events,‘StationPark’,aprimarilygreenspacethatcanaccommodatesmall-scale events,and‘TheIsland’,whichwillpredominantlybea‘passivegardenspace’ thatwillprovideforleisureandrelaxationintheoverallcircuitoftheriverside promenade(MetropolitanRedevelopmentAuthority 2012).
DesignIdeology
WhiletheCircleSchemesawARMmorphthecityintonew,curvilinearformson thewaterfront,theRectangleSchemeisinformedbytheextensionPerth’scolonial citygridtothewaterinalogicalfashion.Whilethisprovidesarationalstructure, itprecludestherichassociationsandsymbolismofthe‘RiverCircle’whichare centraltoARM’seclectic,stronglytextual,post-modernarchitecturalpractice (Dovey 2005,143).IntheRectangleSchemetheformalcomplexityand‘difficult beauty’(Dovey 2005,143)characteristicofARM’sdesignworkthusfindsits expressionnotsomuchatthescaleoftheurbandistrict,butinthedesignofthe publicdomain.Whilethedesignteamgenerallyacceptedthedirectiveofa rectangleinlet,alayerofcomplexitywasaddedthroughtheuseofavirtual, computer-driven,‘generative’tool.Aspreviouslytheripplingeffectsofavirtual dropofwaterweremodelledin3Dmodellingsoftwareandusedtoformthe highlyarticulatedinletedgeconditionsandpavingcharacteristicpatternsof thescheme,butsignificantlynoturbanmassing(Figure7).ThegeometricDNAof theschemeisthushybridized,theprimarygeometryoftherectangleandits urbanframerelatingdirectlytothecitygrid(andthedirectiveofaconservative premier)andthedetailedpublicdomaintreatmentsresultingfromARM’savantgardeandabstractvirtualprocesses.
Theuseofthegenerativetooldoesnotextendtotheisland,however,the formofwhichreferencesGianlorenzoBernini’s EcstasyofStTeresa sculpture, inparticularthefoldingformsofclothusedtoinformthemodellingofthe island’stopography.Duetheisland’sphysicalseparatenessfromthecitygrid, andperhapsbecauseislandsfostertheexpectationofsomereleasefrom
therestraintsofthe‘mainland’,ARMhavebeenabletoachievea‘purer’ expressionofitseclecticandcodeddesignideology(Dovey 2005,143).
PublicDiscourse
BeyondthemorphologicaldifferencesbetweenthecircleandRectangleSchemes, theculturalcontextintowhichtheRectangleSchemewasbeingdeliveredhad undergoneasignificanttransition.AsWellerdescribed:
Peopleacrossthesocio-politicalspectrum(bynowallwell-travelled) havedevelopedathirstforurbanity,alongwiththebeaches,therivers andthesuburbs.Thisthirstisnowbeingquenchedbyanumberofurban projectsthatcanbeseentoreflectanincreasinglysophisticatedcultureof designinPerth.(Weller 2010,38)
Thisnew-founddesireforurbanitywasreflectedinpollsgaugingsupportforthe RectangleScheme.Accordingtoapollby WestAustralian,WesternAustralia’s mostreadnewspaper,conductedin2011,49%ofpeople‘agreewiththenewplans forthewaterfront’,14%‘don’tagreewiththenewplansforthewaterfront,’13% ‘wantitdevelopedbutconsiderthisthewronglook’,and24%think‘whocares, justgetitdone’(Rickard 2011).
Despitetheapparentsupportforthescheme,ongoingvocalresistancetothe developmentofthewaterfronthasflownfromalocaladvocacygroup, CityVision.CityVisionhasbeenconcernedwiththedesignsandissues surroundingPerth’sforeshore,andtoalesserdegreeothermajorurbanprojects incentralPerth,sinceitsinceptionin1987.ComprisingseniorPerthplanners, urbandesigners,architectsandhistorians,CityVisionandasplintergroupcalled the‘CityGatekeepers’havebeenvociferouscriticsofthestategovernment’s proposalsforthewaterfront.CityVision’smajorissuewiththeschemecentres onthesellingofpubliclandtocommercialinterests.InaCityVisionreporttothe stategovernment,LinleyLuttonproclaims,‘planningandurbandesignofthe publicdomainismuchmorethanacommercialortechnicalundertaking.Itis, orshouldbe,amoralandcivicenterprise’(CityVision 2013,6).Inessence CityVisioninherentlydistruststhecommercialcontentoftheproposed developmentwhichthegroupconsiderstobe‘inappropriateanddamagingto boththepublicenjoymentoftheforeshoreandthecitycentreasa whole’(CityVision 2013,7).
TheongoinguncertaintysurroundingtheIndigenousculturalcentre certainlyraisestheissueofthewaterfront’slargerculturalorciviccontribution tothecity.AsDickRigbyandAnnBreenextol:
Publicareasalongwaterfronts[ ]offeranunusualopportunityto educatepeopleofallagesaboutthesocial,maritime,cultural,and environmentalheritageofanarea.Urbanwaterfrontsusuallyhave historicconnections,veryoftenincludingthefoundingplaceofacityor itsreasonforbeing.(1994,27)
Indeed,theygoontoidentifyoneofthemostcommonfailingsofwaterfrontsasa lackofinterpretationofbothnaturalandhistoricfeaturesofthesitesandregions (27).InthisrespecttheCommitteeforPerth,alocaladvocacygroup,generally supportiveofthewaterfrontredevelopment,lobbiedthepremiertoconfirmhis supportofa‘WorldCentreforIndigenousCulture’withintheRectangleScheme
(Fulker 2010b).ThethrustoftheCommitteeforPerth’sargumentistwofold. FirstlythatPerthcould,andshouldbe,thecityinAustraliathatacknowledges, respectsandcelebratesitsIndigenouspeopleandtheirculture(Fulker 2010a). SecondlythatgivenitsscaleiscommensuratewithCircularQuayinSydneythe schemeneedsanequivalenttotheSydneyOperaHouse,abuildingthatelevates thewaterfrontabovethestatusoftheeveryday(Fulker2010a)inbothformaland culturalterms.Undoubtedlyitisimportanttorecognizethatnoteverywaterfront settingcanaccommodateagrandnewlandmarkliketheSydneyOperaHouse, theGuggenheimMuseumBilbao,ortheTenerifeOperaHouseintheCanary Islands.Indeed,Fisheridentifies‘Thereareonlyafewlocationsinanycitywhere suchmomentousarchitecturecanbesustained’(Fisher 2004,56),howeverit wouldseemthatthephysicallyprominentandsymbolicallypotentsiteofthe PerthWaterfrontisonesuchlocation.
DespitethelowerbuildingheightsassociatedwiththeRectangleScheme, criticshavecontinuedtopointtothepotentialofprivatedevelopmentalongthe northernedgeoftheinlettoovershadowthekeypublicspacesofTheLanding andNewRiversideDrive(CityVision 2013,8),whichwillbeclosedtotraffic duringmajorpublicevents.Whilethedesignguidelinesforthesesitesstipulatea minimumamountofsolaraccessto thepublicdomain(Metropolitan RedevelopmentAuthority 2012,33),itremainstobeseenhowtheseguidelines willbereconciledwiththecommercialrealityofthedevelopmentsitestothe north.CertainlytheCityGateKeepersdonothavemuchfaithindesignguidelines toregulatethissituationandhaveproducedarenderofthisareathatdepictsthis spaceascold,darkandforeboding(Figure8).Inthepubliclyreleasedimagesof thescheme,ARMhaveoptedto‘ghost’thesebuildingsandtouseasummersun settingthatminimizestheovershadowingofthisarea—arepresentational approachwhichisperhapstelling(Figure6).
AswasplannedfortheCircleScheme,theRectangularschemeisbeing deliveredviaapublicprivatepartnershipinwhichtheroads,services,public domainandtheinletitselfarefundedbythestategovernment(Metropolitan RedevelopmentAuthority 2013a),whiletheprivatesectorwilldevelopthesites itself.InthispartnershipitisprojectedthegovernmentwillinvestA$440million andtheprivatesectorA$2.2billion(MetropolitanRedevelopmentAuthority 2013a).Asignificantdifferencebetweenthedeliverymodelsofthetwoschemes isthattheMetropolitanRedevelopmentAuthority(MRA)hasbeentaskedwith overseeingthedeliveryoftheRectangleScheme,replacingtheDepartmentof Planning.ThissituationmirrorsthatinVictoria,SouthAustraliaandthe NorthernTerritorywherestategovernmentshavereliedondevelopment authoritiestooverseeandmanagetheirwaterfrontredevelopments(Oakley 2011,228).Thedecisiontorelyonaquasi-governmentdevelopmentauthorityto overseethedesignandconstructionoftheRectangleSchemeperhapsreflects autonomyfromelectedgovernmentthattendstocharacterizetheseauthorities. AsDoveyexplains,‘Thissituationenablesgovernancewithoutelectoral obligation,ratherthelegitimationofauthorityisgrantedonthebasisthat autonomyisnecessarytowealthgeneration’(Dovey 2005,12).Presumablyit helpstoinsulateaschemefromchangingpoliticalfortunes.Evidenceofthisis theMRA’srecordofdeliveringlargeprojectsinPerth,suchastheClaisebrook CovedevelopmentinEastPerthandSubiacoCentro,underavarietyofLiberal andLaborgovernments.
Figure8. ACityGatekeepers’posterreinforcingtheperceptionofpubliclandbeingsoldfor commercialinterests.There-renderedimage(top)isalsopartofawarofrepresentationinwhichthe schemeisrepresentedinamannerthattheyconsiderevokesitstruenature. Courtesy:CityGatekeepers.
Conclusion
ChartingaChangingWaterfront
AnanalysisofproposalsofthePerthwaterfrontfrom1991tothepresentprovides aninsightintochangingapproachestowaterfrontdesigninthePerthcontext.
WhileAlexKreigeridentifiesthatthe‘re-planningofawaterfrontisarecurring need[ ]’(Kreiger 2004,23),thePerthWaterfrontisexceptionalinthatsome21 yearshavingelapsedbetweentheinternationaldesigncompetitionof1991and thecommencementofconstructionoftheElizabethQuayschemein2012. Thelegacyofthisextendedprocessisthemultitudeofschemesthatilluminate changingapproachestowaterfrontdesign.
Asthispaperhasdiscussed,withinthePerthcontextatransitionhas occurredfrompredominatelylandscapecompositionstohighlyurbane ensembles.Thewinningsubmissionsforthe1991competitionfortheforeshore workedwithinaCityBeautifulunderstandingofwaterfrontsas‘handsome shorelineparks,plazas,walkways,bridges,andriversidedrives’(Rigbyand Breen 1994,12),whichitsoughttoreconcilewiththeSwanRiver’ssenseofplace. By2008thishadshiftedtoanunderstandingofwaterfrontsasmanifestationsofa growingappreciationofurbanvalues(RigbyandBreen 1994,5).Changesalso includeashiftindesignideologies,fromthe‘rationaldesignmovement’of Lynch’surbantheory,whichinformedtheurbanframeofthelandscapescheme, tothehighlytextual(Dovey 2005,143),stylizedapproachofARM.Thefocusona local‘senseofplace’(Seddon 1972)definedbythesculptingofhistoricshorelines andplantingofendemicplantspecieshasgivenwaytourbandesignimagerythat aspirestoproducingsymboliccapitalinrelationtoincreasinglyvolatileglobal flowsofcapitalandskilledlabour(Marshall 2001b,53).Adisciplinaryshifthas occurredinwhicharchitecturehastrumpedtheprofessionsofplanningand environmentaldesignforitsabilitytoproduce‘newformsofplaceimagery’ (Dovey 2005,13).Finallythemodelbywhichthewaterfrontsweretobedelivered hasshiftedconsiderablyfromamodelofentirelystategovernmentfundingin 1991tothepublic–privatepartnershipsproposedfortheRectangleScheme.In conjunctionwiththis,thedirectinvolvementofthestategovernmentindelivering theprojecthasshiftedtotheroleofsemiautonomousdevelopmentauthorities (Dovey 2005,129).
Itisinformativetocomparethechronologyoftheseshiftswiththosethat haveoccurredwithwaterfrontsglobally.The1991winningandcommended schemesforPerthforeshorecanbeconsideredtosharetheformalgreenbelt morphologytypicaltotheCityBeautifulwaterfrontcompositionsofDaniel Burnham,FrederickLawOlmstedandJohnC.Olmstedfromtheearlytwentieth century(RigbyandBreen 1994,12),albeittemperedwithlocalreferencestoa ‘senseofplace’,Interestinglythereappearstohavebeenadelayedreactionin Perth,whichmeantthatprojectslikeBaltimore’sInnerHarbour,whichis regardedasa‘classictaleofmoderntimes’(RigbyandBreen 1996,23),wasnot heldupasamodeltowhichtoaspire.ThisisdespiteBaltimore’sredevelopment precedingthe1991competitionby11years.TheCircleScheme,withits‘logo skyline’andsupergraphicSwanIsland,stylisticallyresonateswithprojectsinthe ArabianGulf,includingDubai’sBusinessBay.Thismorphologicalsimilarity reflectsthefactthatinDubai,andtheArabianGulfgenerallywaterfrontsarenot retrofittedindustrialportsbutratheraresculptedoutofrelativelyunencumbered land.Thereisalsotheprojectionofa‘newcity’onthewaterfrontassomewhat separatetothe‘old’citywhichtheseschemesshare.Finally,theoverall morphologyoftheRectangularSchemerelatesinscale,ifnotdetaileddesign treatments,tohonestpost-industrialwaterfrontslikeMelbourneDocklandsand Sydney’sCircularQuay,asituationthatperhapsrepresentsanattemptby
administratorstopositionPerth’swaterfrontwithinthecanonofnow well-establishedand‘safe’waterfrontmodels.
ChartingaChangingCity
Whiletheschemescanbeinterpretedinrelationtoshiftingtrendsinwaterfront design,theyalsochartaPerththathaschangedsignificantly.Since1991 successiveeconomicboomsandanenviablelifestylehaveaddedoverhalfa millionpeopletoPerth’spopulation(AustralianBureauofStatistics 2013). Emergingfromacitythathasoneofthelowestpopulationdensitiesintheworld, Perthnowhasa‘planningvisionofitselfin2031asavibrant,urbane,andtransit orientedcity’(Weller 2007,28).Thereappearstobeagrowingperception,as indicatedbysupportfortheRectangleSchemeunderconstruction,thatwelldesignedurbanityinareasofhighamenityandassociatedwithpublictransport links,asadvocatedinPerth’sstrategicplanningdocument,donotneedtooccurat theexpenseofPerth’ssuburbanidyll.Thisisasubstantialshiftforacitywhichin 1991stronglydisapprovedofa‘livelywaterfrontatmosphere,waterfront buildings,buildingsonjettiesorevenmarketsandsouvenirstalls’(Western AustralianGovernment 1991).
Inessence,proposalsforPerth’swaterfrontchartthethroesofacity strugglingtobecomeurban:fromtheearly1991competition-winningscheme, whichreservedtheforeshoreas‘nature’,tothecurrentschemeforthe waterfront,whichcontinuestoembodytheambitiontoenfoldthelanguid SwanRiverinamomentaryurbanembrace.Theabilityoftheschemesto chart,andforge,thischangingmentalityrelatestotheunprecedentedamount ofdebatetheyhaveprecipitated,inbothprintanddigitalmedia,andat barbecues,dinnertables,pubsandrestaurantsaroundPerthoverthepasttwo decades.Priortoschemesfortheforeshorein1991,urbandesign,through thelensofasingleproject,hadneverbeenthesubjectofsuchprolonged populardebateinPerth.Itisthissustaineddebate,carriedoutinthepublic sphere,thathasbeeninstrumentalinforgingsupportforurbandensification inPerth.
Implications
Thepaperhasexploredeachschemeinrelationtoitsmorphology,ideologyand publicdiscourse,withtheinteractionsbetweenthesecriteriadiscussedthrough thelensoftheparticularproject.Thequestionremains,however,howcanthis triumviratebereconsideredsoastominimizethepolarizingandsometimes paralysingdebatewhichtheprojecthassometimesproduced?Inthisrespect, whilethepublicdiscoursegenerallyappearstoreflectabroadunderstandingof themorphologyoftheproposals,inrelationtothetworecentARMschemesit wouldappearthepublichaslittleunderstandingofthedesignideologyfrom whichtheschemesemerge.Thisbreakdowninunderstandingpartlyreflectsthe heavy‘stagemanagement’of,inparticular,the2011RectangleSchemebythe MRA.Toalargedegreethedesignershavebeenkeptoutofthepubliceyeand assuchdirectcommunicationofthedesignideologybehindtheschemesis absent.IndeedtheMRAwebsitecompletelyomitsanyreferencetowhothe designconsultantsareorindeedwhattheirdesignideologymaybe.Giventhat debateabouturbandesigninPerthisgaininginmaturity,itwouldappear
timelythatdesignersofkeypublicprojectscancommunicatemoredirectlywith thepublicabouttheideologythatunderpinstheirdesigns.Inturnifthepublic hasabroaderunderstandingofthephilosophybehindascheme,theyareless likelytobeperturbedbyisolatedmorphologicalelementssuchasatalltoweror swan-shapedislandandideallythedebatecanshifttomorefundamental issues.
Atabroaderscaletheresearchalsoraisesthequestionofwhatnextforthe foreshore?The300mstretchofriver’sedgethatisbeingredevelopedaspartof theRectangleSchemerepresentsasmallfractionofthe8kmofriveredgesof PerthWater,edgesthatwillrequiresignificantredesigninthiscenturyofsea levelrise,increasedintensitystormeventsandsignificantpopulationgrowth. Indeedmappingofthe1.1mofsealevelrisepredictedtohaveoccurredby2100 (DepartmentoftheEnvironment 2013)showsLangleyPark,HeirissonIsland andtheSouthPerthforeshoresalmostcompletelyunderwater.Thecombination ofthispredictedsealevelrisewithfloodingfromincreasinglydramaticstorm eventscouldbecatastrophic.Unlessitisabletobebarricaded,themajorityof Perth’sforeshorewillbe‘reclaimed’bytheriver;possiblyrevertingbacktoa pre-settlementlandscapeofrushbedsandsaltmarshes.Indeedwhilethispaper haschartedashiftfromnaturalistictourbaneconceptionsofPerth’sforeshore, someliteraturewouldsuggestthatthe‘softinfrastructure’ofvegetatedislands andwetlandsmaybethebestresponsetosealevelrise(Nordenson,Seavitt,and Yarinsky 2010),andassuchthependulummayintimeswingbackinthis direction.Intuitivelyadegreeofhybridizationofbothurbaneandnatural systemswouldbeappearideal;urbandevelopmentbeingrequiredtohelpmeet stategovernmentdensificationtargets,butalsotogeneratethefundsrequiredto construct‘softinfrastructure’.Speculationaside,themainissueremainsthat Perthstillhasnocoordinatedplanforhowtoreconcilethesevariouscompeting conceptionsofitsforeshore.
ItisinthiscontextthattheconstructionofElizabethQuayishighly significant,butitdoesnotmarkanendpoint.AstheSeinewasheldupasa modelfortheredevelopmentofMelbourne’sYarraRiverinthe1990s(Dovey andSandercock 2002 ),thequestionforPerthbecomeswhatistheappropriate modelforPerthWaterintheearlydecadesofthe21stcentury?Thisquestion, ofcourse,goesbeyondtheissuesofmorphologyorfunction.Ashasbeen described,waterfrontsarethesiteswhereculturestendtoconstructand expresstheiridentity(Oakley 2011).Thereforetheprocessofenvisioningthe urbanroomofPerthWaterwillbeverymuchaboutassertingPerth’sculture, inpartinrelationtoanancientriverinelandscape.Throughananalysisof proposalsforPerth’sforeshorethispaperhasaimedtoprovidethenecessary backgroundfortheadvancingofthismodelforPerthWaterinthe21st century.
Acknowledgements
ThankstoGeoffreyLondon,NigelWestbrookandtwoanonymousreviewersfor providinginsightfulandusefulcommentsonearlierdraftsofthispaper.Thanks alsotoJillPenterforhereverpatientcopyediting;andtoDinisCandeiasand RosemaryHalsmithforassistancewiththeimages.
Notes
1.InthispaperPerth’sforeshorewillrefertothebroaderlandscapedelineatingPerth’srelationshipto theSwanRiver.ThePerthWaterfrontsiteisasmallerdefinedsitethatiscurrentlyunder development.
2.Ina2008survey,of1300people,67%ofcommentsregardingtheschemewerepositive, 20%negative,andtheresteitherneutralorunrelated(HatchandJerrard 2008,17).
References
AMO,ToddReisz,andKayokoOta.2007.“GulfSurvey.” AlManakh,27May,12,70–334. AustralianBureauofStatistics.2013.“3218.0—RegionalPopulationGrowth,Australia,2011–12.”Australian BureauofStatistics2012.AccessedJune26,2013. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3218.0/ Bevis,Stephen.2013.“IndigenousCentreStillPartofPlan.” TheWestAustralian,02.01. Brennan,Kate.2010.“FederationSquare—APlaceforthePeople.” JournalofPlaceManagementand Development 3(2):130–135. CityofPerth.1985. CentralPerthForeshoreStudy:InterimReport.Perth:CityofPerth. CityVision.2013. PerthWaterfrontDevelopment(ElizabethQuay)Project:SummaryReportofSubmissionsby InvitedExpertsandConclusionsandRecommendationsbyCityVision,editedbyCityVision.Perth:CityVision. DepartmentoftheEnvironment.2013.“MappingSeaLevelRise.”DepartmentoftheEnvironment 2013.AccessedOctober26,2013. http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/adaptingclimate-change/australias-coasts-and-climate-change/mapping-sea-level-rise Dovey,Kim.2005. FluidCity:TransformingMelbourne’sUrbanWaterfront.London:Routledge. Dovey,Kim,andLeonieSandercock.2002.“Please,Politicsandthe“PublicInterest”:Melbourne’s RiverscapeRevitalization.” AmericanPlanningAssociation 68(2):151–164. Durack,Ruth.2008.“PerthForeshore.” LandscapeAustralia,118:26–27. Fisher,Bonnie.2004.“WaterfrontDesign.”In RemakingtheUrbanWaterfront,editedbyTheUrbanLand Institute.Washington:TheUrbanLandInstitute.
Fulker,Marion.2010.“PerthForeshore-AConversation.”AccessedFebruary10,2013. http://www. committeeforperth.com.au/pdf/Advocacy/Speech%20-%20Perth%20Foreshore%20A%20Conversation %20for%20AIUS,%20April%202011.pdf
Fulker,Marion.2010b. WaterfrontDevelopmentandWorldCentreforIndigenousCulture.Perth:Committee forPerth.
GehlArchitects.2009. Perth2009:PublicSpaces&PublicLife.Perth:CityofPerth,Departmentfor PlanningandInfrastructure. Gelerntner,Mark.1996. SourcesofArchitecturalForm:ACriticalHistoryofWesternDesignTheory Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.
Giblett,Rob.2007.“BlackandWhiteWater.”In FreshWater:NewPerspectivesonWaterinAustralia, editedbyEmilyPotter,AlisonMackinnon,StephenMcKenzie,andJenniferMcKay.Melbourne: MelbourneUniversityPress.
Gordon,David.2004.“ImplementingUrbanWaterfrontRedevelopment.”In RemakingtheUrban Waterfront,editedbyTheUrbanLandInstitute,80–99.Washington:TheUrbanLandInstitute. Gregory,J.2009.“Perth’sWaterfrontandUrbanPlanning1954–93:TheNarrowsSchemeandthePerth CityForeshoreProject.”Paperpresentedat StateofAustralianCitiesConference.Crawley,Western Australia.
Hall,Tony.2010. TheLifeandDeathoftheAustralianBackyard.Collingwood:CSIROPublishing. Hatch,Daniel,andSuellenJerrard.2008.“MostSharePremier’sVisionfortheWaterfront.” TheWest Australian,26.03. Hughes-Hallett,Debra.2010. IndigenousHistoryoftheSwanandCanningRivers.Perth:SwanRiverTrust. Kreiger,Alex.2004.“TheTransformationoftheUrbanWaterfront.”In RemakingtheUrbanWaterfront, editedbyUrbanLandInstitute,22–47.Washington:TheUrbanLandInstitute. Lehrer,U.,andJ.Laidlely.2009.“OldMega-projectsNewlyPackaged?WaterfrontRedevelopmentin Toronto.” InternationalJournalofUrbanandRegionalResearch 32(4):786–803. Lynch,Kevin.1960. TheImageoftheCity.Cambridge:TheMITPress. Marshall,Richard.2001a.“ContemporaryUrbanSpace-makingattheWater’sEdge.”In Waterfrontsin Post-IndustrialCities,editedbyRichardMarshall,3–14.London:SponPress. Marshall,Richard.2001b. WaterfrontsinPost-IndustrialCities.NewYork,NY:SponPress. MetropolitanRedevelopmentAuthority.2012. PerthWaterfrontDesignGuidelines.Perth:Metropolitan RedevelopmentAuthority.
MetropolitanRedevelopmentAuthority.2013a.“ElizabethQuay:AnMRAProject.”Metropolitan RedevelopmentAuthority2013a.AccessedOctober3,2013. http://www.mra.wa.gov.au/Projects/ Elizabeth-Quay/Publications
MetropolitanRedevelopmentAuthority.2013b.“ElizabethQuay:FrequentlyAskedQuestions.” MetropolitanRedevelopmentAuthority2013b.AccessedOctober3,2013. http://www.mra.wa.gov. au/Projects/Elizabeth-Quay/Publications
Nevill,Simon.2007. PerthandFremantlePastandPresent.Perth:SimonNevillPublications. Nordenson,Guy,CatherineSeavitt,andAdamYarinsky.2010. OntheWater:PalisadeBay.NewYork, NY:MuseumofModernArt.
Oakley,Susan.2011.“Re-imaginingCityWaterfronts:AComparativeAnalysisofGoverningRenewal inAdelaide,DarwinandMelbourne.” UrbanPolicyandResearch 29(3):221–238. Oakley,Susan,andLouiseJohnson.2012.“Place-takingandPlace-makinginWaterfrontRenewal, Australia.” UrbanStudies 50(2):341–355.
Raggatt,Howard.2008.“PerthWaterfront.” ArchitectureAustralia 97(3):42. Rickard,Lucy.2011.“LatestPerthWaterfrontRedevelopmentGetsaCashBoost.” TheWestAustralian, 26.04.
Rigby,Dick,andAnnBreen.1994. Waterfronts:CitiesReclaimTheirEdge.NewYork,NY:McGraw-Hill. Rigby,Dick,andAnnBreen.1996. TheNewWaterfront.NewYork:ThamesandHudson. Rondganger,Lee.2009.“BarnettRevealsWaterfrontPlanstoIntegratePerthCityandRiver.” TheWest Australian,24.06.
Seddon,George.1972. SenseofPlace.Perth:TheUniversityofWesternAustraliaPress. Seddon,George.1995. SwanSong:ReflectionsonPerthandWesternAustralia1956–1995.Perth: TheCentreforStudiesinAustralianLiterature. Seddon,George,andDavidRavine.1986. ACityandItsSetting:ImagesofPerth,WesternAustralia. Perth:FremantleArtsCentrePress. StaffReporter.2009.“PerthWaterfrontPlansUnveiled.” TheWestAustralian Stephenson,Gordon.1975. TheDesignofCentralPerth:SomeProblemsandPossibleSolutions Perth:UniversityofWesternAustralia. Stickells,Lee.2008.“PerthWaterfront.” ArchitectureAustralia 97(3):42. Stolper,David,andNickWyatt.2012. MyCity:ThePeople’sVerdict2012.Sydney:ThePropertyCouncil ofAustralia. Thomas,Beatrice.2012.“GrouptoFightWaterfrontPlan.” WestAustralian,16.01. Weller,Richard.2007.“NorthbridgeLink.” LandscapeArchitectureAustralia,114:28–31. Weller,Richard.2009. Boomtown2050.Perth:UniversityofWesternAustraliaPress. Weller,Richard.2010.“PublicPerth.” LandscapeArchitectureAustralia,128:36–39. WestAustralianGovernment.1991. PerthCityForeshoreUrbanDesignCompetition:Awardsand Commendations.Perth:WestAustralianGovernment. Westbrook,Nigel.2008.“PerthWaterfront.” ArchitectureAustralia 97(3):44. WesternAustralianGovernment.1991. PerthCityForeshoreUrbanDesignCompetition:Conditionsand Brief.Perth:WesternAustralianGovernment. Yabuka,Narelle.2008.“PerthWaterfront.” ArchitectureAustralia 97(3):41.