2019_Greenspace-Oriented Development

Julian Bolleter

Cristina E. Ramalho

Greenspace-Oriented Development

Reconciling Urban Density and Nature in Suburban

Cities

SpringerBriefsinGeography

SpringerBriefsinGeographypresentsconcisesummariesofcutting-edgeresearch andpracticalapplicationsacrossthe fieldsofphysical,environmentalandhuman geography.Itpublishescompactrefereedmonographsundertheeditorialsupervisionofaninternationaladvisoryboardwiththeaimtopublish8to12weeksafter acceptance.Volumesarecompact,50to125pages,withaclearfocus.Theseries coversarangeofcontentfromprofessionaltoacademicsuchas:timelyreportsof state-of-theartanalyticaltechniques,bridgesbetweennewresearchresults, snapshotsofhotand/oremergingtopics,elaboratedthesis,literaturereviews,and in-depthcasestudies.

Thescopeoftheseriesspanstheentire fieldofgeography,withaviewto signifi cantlyadvanceresearch.Thecharacteroftheseriesisinternationaland multidisciplinaryandwillincluderesearchareassuchas:GIS/cartography,remote sensing,geographicaleducation,geospatialanalysis,techniquesandmodeling, landscape/regionalandurbanplanning,economicgeography,housingandthebuilt environment,andquantitativegeography.Volumesinthisseriesmayanalyzepast, presentand/orfuturetrends,aswellastheirdeterminantsandconsequences.Both solicitedandunsolicitedmanuscriptsareconsideredforpublicationinthisseries.

SpringerBriefsinGeographywillbeofinteresttoawiderangeofindividuals withinterestsinphysical,environmentalandhumangeographyaswellasfor researchersfromallieddisciplines.

Moreinformationaboutthisseriesat http://www.springer.com/series/10050

JulianBolleter

AustralianUrbanDesignResearch Centre(AUDRC)

TheUniversityofWesternAustralia

Perth,WA,Australia

CristinaE.Ramalho

SchoolofBiologicalSciences,NESPClean AirandUrbanLandscapesHub

TheUniversityofWesternAustralia

Perth,WA,Australia

ISSN2211-4165ISSN2211-4173(electronic) SpringerBriefsinGeography

ISBN978-3-030-29600-1ISBN978-3-030-29601-8(eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29601-8

© TheAuthor(s),underexclusivelicensetoSpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG2020 Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsaresolelyandexclusivelylicensedbythePublisher,whether thewholeorpartofthematerialisconcerned,specificallytherightsoftranslation,reprinting,reuseof illustrations,recitation,broadcasting,reproductiononmicrofilmsorinanyotherphysicalway,and transmissionorinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilar ordissimilarmethodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.

Theuseofgeneraldescriptivenames,registerednames,trademarks,servicemarks,etc.inthis publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfrom therelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.

Thepublisher,theauthorsandtheeditorsaresafetoassumethattheadviceandinformationinthis bookarebelievedtobetrueandaccurateatthedateofpublication.Neitherthepublishernorthe authorsortheeditorsgiveawarranty,expressedorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontained hereinorforanyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.Thepublisherremainsneutralwithregard tojurisdictionalclaimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.

ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland

Foreword

OMG:Lookatallthepeopleinthepark!

InthewesternsuburbsofSydneyinthe60sand70skidsraninferalpacks.We neverworeshoesorusedsunscreen.Bottledwaterhadn’tyetbeeninvented,pools wereuncommonluxuryitemsandtheideaofcarryingaphonearoundwithyou wouldhavebeenabsurd.Parkswerenothingbutbig flatgrassedareaswithmaybea swingofftooneside,andaconcretecricketpitchinthemiddle.

Instead,thewholesuburbwasanadventureplayground.Fromdawntodusk,we wouldbefree-rangingthroughtheneighbourhood’smassivebackyards:climbing trees,pinchingfruit,riflingthroughsheds,careeningdownwidestreetswithcrusty “naturestrips” oncheapdragsters,orprettymuchanythingwithwheels.Equipped withessentialslikecompassesandsling-shots,we’dfanoutacrosshousingestates underconstruction,rummagingaroundthebuildingsites,chuckingrocks,investigatingderelictfarmsandhuntingforwildlifeinwhatseemedlikevasttractsof pristinebushandopencreeks.

Butthenstacksofstormwaterpipesandsurveyor ’spegsstartedappearing. BabyKookaburrasandtheoddowlwouldmysteriouslyjustshowupinthegarden, dazed.We’dfeedthemmincedmeatorwhatever,andifthatdidn’tkillthemthen thecatsanddogsdid.Ionceclubbedaredbellyblacksnaketodeathandtookitto schoolasatrophy.Littledidweknow,thisendlessplayscapewasabouttovanish underthetideofSydney’smanifestwestwarddestiny.Indeed,wewerethattide. However,asateenagerinthe80s,thetideturnedandweallheadedinthe oppositedirection,makingabeelineforthatglowingthingcalled “thecity”.This meanttheinnercity Newtown,SurryHills,Darlinghurst,etc.;apromiscuous labyrinthofcheaprentalspaceand “leb” food.Terracesandwarehousesoverflowed withundernourishedmods,goths,punksandvestigial “westies” notyetpreparedto completelyreinventthemselves.Oneverycornerwasapub,andineverypubwasa band.Everyonewasanartist,orcouldatleastlooklikeone.Abanonal-fresco dining finallygavewayand “café culture” spilledintothestreets.Sydneybecame theGaycentreoftheuniverse,andthemiracleofthecity’sharborsideparkswas alwaystheretohelpnursehangoversthenextday.

Sowhyintroduceabookaboutincreasingdensityaroundpublicopenspacein Australiansuburbswithreminiscencesoflow-densitysuburbiaontheonehand, andhigh-densityurbanityontheother?Well,becausewiththisbooklandscape architect,JulianBolleterandurbanecologist,CristinaRamalhoaresuggestingthat, withinreason,thesetwoformsofurbanismarenotcontradictory;theyarenotjust ofthepast,andmostimportantlytheydon’tnecessarilyneedtobeestrangedfrom oneanotheratseparateendsofthecity.TheyarguethatwithalittlefaithinGOD: notthedeity,butanewurbandevelopmentapproach,Greenspace-Oriented Development,wheremedium-tohigh-densitydevelopmentisgraftedtightlyonto existingpublicopenspaces,wecanbringtogetherthevirtuesofsuburbiaandthe innercity.

Thisisnotthe fi rsttimeplannershavetriedtomixlandscapeandurbanityina bidtoofferthebestofboth.ButwhereaspreviousmodelssuchasLeCorbusier ’s “TowersinthePark”,EbenezerHoward’s “GardenCity” andFrankLloydWright’s “BroadacreCity” demandednothinglessthanthecompleterestructuringofthe existingcity,andfailedasaconsequence,BolleterandRamalhourgethatweact nowwithrelativeprecision.Theyshowhowwecanbothenhanceandpreservethe existingurbanfabricofourcitieswhilstincreasingdensityaroundtheedgesof parksandothertractsofopenspace.

Doingsonotonlyofferspublicopenspaceinlieuofprivatebackyardsto incentivizehealthyapartmentliving,butitcouldalsoobviatethecurrentpracticeof low-qualityurbaninfill,suchasthebattleaxingofmiddle-ringsuburbanblocks. Thiswouldhelpsavebackyardsforthekidsofthefuture,givetheurbanforestthe spaceitrequirestomature,andalsoensureporouslandtoabsorband fi lterthe stormwaterrun-offthatwouldotherwisepolluteourwaterways.Notonlythat, morepeoplelivingdirectlyadjacenttoparkstranslatesintomoreactivityin,and moneyfor,saidparks,manyofwhicharecurrentlyunderutilizedburdensonlocal governmentbudgets.

Densi ficationaroundpublicopenspaceswouldalsomakeourparksmoresocial. ParkscouldbecometoAustralianswhatpiazzasaretoItalians.Morepeopleliving closertoparkscouldalsobringpeopleandthenaturalworldclosertogether.Our parkscouldberetrofittedasoasesofbiodiversityandprovidersofotherecosystem services.Mostimportantly,fromanenvironmentalperspective,increasingthe densityoftheexistingurbanfabricwillhelpmitigatesprawlattheedgeofthecity, wherespeciesarenotjustbeingkilledbywildkids,butbybulldozerspreparing newsuburbs(withoutbigbackyards).

DespitetheobviousmeritsofGOD,Icanalreadyhearthenay-sayersliningup: thelandaroundparkswon’tbecheaptoparcel,theNIMBYswillbeapoplecticand finallythebigno-no:GODisnotTODsoitreinforcesadisconnectbetweendensity andpublictransport.WeshouldnoteherethatBolleterandRamalhododrawaline aroundwhereGODshouldtakeplace,suggestingthatsiteswithina20-minute walkablecatchmentaroundpublictransportnodesarebest.Buteveniftheseare legitimateconcerns,dotheyoutweighGODs’ possiblebenefi ts?Inshootingdown newideasweshouldalsonotethatGODisnotbeingpresentedhereasacure-all. Australiancitiesneedamosaicofsolutionsfortheirgrowingpopulations;solutions

thatcapitalizeonourcities’ existingassets,thatpreserveandenhancelivabilityand thatofferarangeoflifestyleoptions,atarangeofpricepoints.GODdoesn’t replaceTOD,butIforonewouldratherlivenexttotheparkthanthetrainstation. IloathethewayAustralianplanningisreducingthecitytoaquestionofgettingto andfromwork.

ComparingGODtomyownnostalgiaforAustraliancities,Icanimaginethat beingatwenty-fi rst-centurykidinanapartmentclosetoaparkwouldbepretty good.Icanalsoimaginebeingayoungadultinasuburbwithatleastsome enclavesofdensitytospicethingsupabit,andtheparkasrendezvousalsobeing OK.AndlookingtothefutureIcanalsoimaginedownsizingandretiringwitha parkviewandacafé onthecorner.

Godknows,youcoulddoalotworse.

RichardWeller

ProfessorandChairofLandscapeArchitecture MeyersonChairofUrbanism Co-Director,McHargCenter DepartmentofLandscapeArchitecture StuartWeitzmanSchoolofDesign UniversityofPennsylvania Philadelphia,PA,USA

Acknowledgements

AcknowledgementsforJulianBolleter

ThankyoutothesupportersoftheAustralianUrbanDesignResearchCentrewhere Iwork,TheWesternAustralianPlanningCommission,TheWesternAustralian DepartmentofPlanning,LandsandHeritage,theDepartmentofCommunitiesand Landcorp.

ThankyoutotheJournalofLandscapeArchitectureandAustralianPlannerwho havekindlygrantedpermissionforustoreproduce,withedits,materialinthis book.Theoriginalpapersare:

Bolleter,J.(2016).Backgroundnoise:areviewoftheeffectsofbackgroundinfill onurbanliveabilityinPerth.AustralianPlanner,10,1–14.

Bolleter,Julian,&Ramalho,CristinaE.(2014).Thepotentialofecologically enhancedurbanparkstoencourageandcatalyzedensi ficationingreyfieldsuburbs. JournalofLandscapeArchitecture,9(3),54–65.

ThankstoRobCameronwhoassistedwiththegraphicproduction,andtoPaula HooperandBillGracefortheirastutereviews.

Iamgratefultomycolleagues,AnthonyDuckworth-Smith,BillGrace,Grace Oliver,JillPenter,PaulaHooperandZoeMyersfortheirtoleranceofyetanother bookproject.

IwouldliketoacknowledgeRichardWeller,whoin2012introducedmetothe conceptofcorrelatingurbandensityandupgradedgreenspace aconceptwhich formsthebasisofthisbook.

Thankyoualsotomyco-authorCristinaRamalhoforaproductiveandpleasurablecollaboration.

Thanksgotomyparents,GlenysandRoss,fortheirunwaveringsupport. Finally,Iamgratefultomypartner,Dr.SallyAppleton,andmydaughterRose Bolleter,fortheirloveandsupport.

AcknowledgementsforCristinaE.Ramalho

IwouldliketoacknowledgethesupportbytheAustralianGovernment’sNational EnvironmentalScienceProgramthroughtheCleanAirandUrbanLandscapesHub.

IwouldalsoliketothankmycolleagueswithintheHub,aswellasthosewithin theRichardHobbs’ EcosystemRestorationandInterventionEcologygroup,for theirgeneralsupport,stimulatingworkenvironmentandacademicdiscussions. AspecialthankstoCaraghThrelfall,KylieSoanes,NatashaPauli,KateLee,Dawn Dickinson,LeonieValentine,DavidKendalandJudyBushforthediscussions, sharedlearningandcollaborativeworkonthetopicofurbangreenspacesand urbanbiodiversity.

ThankyoualsotoJulianBolleterfortheongoingmuchvaluedcollaborationand theopportunitytoco-writethisbook.

Finally,tomypartnerJensKirschandourdaughterIsabellewhowasbornjust beforethisbookwassubmittedforpublication,toyouboth,thankyouforyour patience,inspirationandlove.

3WhyGOD?TheBene

3.4TheBene

4.1.3Step3:RezonetheUrbanPrecinctSurroundingParks

4.1.5Step5:DecentralizeServicesInfrastructure

4.1.6Step6:ConductNeeds-BasedAssessmentandEquip

AbouttheAuthors

Dr.JulianBolleter isCo-DirectoroftheAustralianUrbanDesignResearch Centre(AUDRC)atTheUniversityofWesternAustralia.HisroleatAUDRC includesteachingamaster ’sprograminurbandesignandconductingurban design-relatedresearchanddesignprojects.Heisalandscapearchitectandurban designerandhasworkedinAustralia,theUSA,theUKandtheMiddleEast.He hascompletedaPh.D.concerningurbandevelopmentinDubaiandhaspublished sixbooks.Hisresearchfocussesonthedesignofnewcities,urbandensification, andmultifunctionalpublicopenspace.HehasreceivedfundingfromtheAustralian ResearchCouncil,HealthwaysandtheWesternAustraliangovernment.

Dr.CristinaE.Ramalho isaResearchFellowinUrbanEcologyat TheUniversityofWesternAustralia.SheisLeaderofthe UrbanGreeningfor LivabilityandBiodiversity ProjectwithintheCleanAirandUrbanLandscapesHub oftheAustralianNationalEnvironmentalScienceProgram.Herworkis inter-disciplinaryandfocusesonhowwecanbetterplan,designandmanageurban environmentsinordertomakethesemorelivableandbiodiverse.Sheisparticularly interestedin(1)understandinghowthedesignofurbangreenspacescanbebetter informedbymultidisciplinaryknowledgeaimingtooptimizetheirsocio-ecological benefits;(2)conservationofurbanbiodiversity,especiallyremnantplantcommunities;and(3)integrationoftraditionalknowledgeinland-useandwaterplanning andbiodiversityconservation.

Abbreviations

GODGreenspace-OrientedDevelopment hahectare(s)

kmkilometer(s) mmetre

POSPublicOpenSpace

TODTransit-OrientedDevelopment

Chapter1 Introduction

Abstract Thisintroductorychapterestablishesthebackgroundwithinwhichthe book’sdiscussionabouturbandensificationisset.Urbansprawlisamajorfacetof contemporaryurbanization.IncountriessuchasAustraliaandtheUS,expansive suburbanizationconsistingofsingle-family,freestandingresidentialdwellingsis ubiquitous.Despiteitsubiquity,urbansprawlfacesseveralemergingcrises,which threatenitsdominance.Theseincludethedestructionofagriculturallyproductive andbiodiverseland,ballooninginfrastructurecostsandcommutingtimes,andthe concentrationofvulnerablesocio-economicstrataonthecity’sfringes.Theseissues, inconjunctionwiththechallengesofdeliveringTransit-OrientedDevelopmentin existingurbanareas,highlighttheneedforacomplementarystrategyforachieving urbandensificationinsuburbancities.Inthisbookweexplorethistopicwithafocus ontheAustraliancontext.

Keywords Cities · Compactcities · Greenspace-OrientedDevelopment · Transit-OrientedDevelopment · Suburbs · Urbaninfill · Urbanconsolidation · Urbandensification · Urbangreenspace · Urbanparks · Urbansprawl · Public openspace

1.1Background

1.1.1GlobalUrbanGrowth

Weliveonanurbanizingplanet.In2008,demographersattheUnitedNations announcedthatmorethan50%ofhumanswerelivingincitiesandthesprawling suburbsthatsurroundthem.Thissymbolizedaprofoundchangeinhumanhistory. Neverhasmostoftheworld’spopulationlivedinurbanareas.Theworldtodayhas 4.2billionurbandwellers(UnitedNations 2018),500citieswithpopulationsofat leastonemillionpeople,74withatleastfivemillion,and12withatleast20million (McNeillandEngelke 2016).By2050,therewillbe2.5billionmoreurbandwellers, accountingfor68%oftheworld’spopulation(UnitedNations 2018),andmaking urbanizationoneofthetwenty-first-century’smosttransformativetrends(United NationsGeneralAssembly 2016).

©TheAuthor(s),underexclusivelicensetoSpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG2020 J.BolleterandC.E.Ramalho, Greenspace-OrientedDevelopment, SpringerBriefsinGeography, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29601-8_1

Duetorapidurbanization,citieswillcontinuetobethefocusforpopulation growth,economicactivity,social,culturalandenvironmentalissues(UnitedNations GeneralAssembly 2016).Citiesarealready,andincreasinglywillbe,confronted withenormouschallengesintermsoftheprovisionofhousing,infrastructure,basic services,health,education,employmentandnaturalresources,amongstmanyothers (UnitedNationsGeneralAssembly 2016).Clearly,theplanninganddesignofour citieswillfundamentallydeterminetheviabilityofthehumanspecies—amongst manyothers—inthistwenty-firstcentury.

1.1.2MassSuburbanization

Aroundtheworld,thevastmajorityofpeopleareflockingtocitiesnottodwell intheircentresbuttosuburbanizetheirperipheries(Bergeretal. 2017).Reflecting this,from2000to2015,inallregionsoftheworld,theexpansionofurbanizedland outpacedthegrowthofurbanpopulations,resultinginunprecedented“urbansprawl” (UnitedNations 2017)(Fig. 1.1).Asaresultofpopulationgrowth,andinsomecases decliningdensities,by2030,anestimated1.2millionkm2 oflandworldwidewill becomeurbanized(Setoetal. 2012).

Fig.1.1 Suburbia:From2000to2015,inallregionsoftheworld,theexpansionofurbanized landoutpacedthegrowthofurbanpopulations,resultinginunprecedented“urbansprawl”. Source JulianBolleter

Inthewesternworld,1 assoonasthemiddleclasscouldaffordtomovetolowdensitysuburbia,developmentattheperipheryhasboomed(Bruegmann 2017).As aresult,incountriessuchasAustralia,theUSandUK,expansivesuburbanization consistingofsingle-family,freestandinghousingisubiquitous(e.g.Schneiderand Woodcock 2008).Indeed,over80%ofthepresent-daypopulationsintheUSand UKfindthesuburbs“attractiveplacestolive”(Hagan 2017).

ThereisabroadconsensusintheliteraturethatmostAustraliansalsoaspiretoown alarge,detachedhouseinthesuburbs(Kellyetal. 2011a)(Fig. 1.2).The“Australian dream”ofowningyourownhomeisoftenautomaticallyassociatedwithadetached houseonablockoflandandisseenasamarkofhaving“madeit”.Forinstance, astudyconductedinPerth,revealedthatwhennotconstrainedbyincome,79%of peoplepreferredaseparatedwellingand13%asemi-detachedoption,withonly7% preferringflats,unitsorapartments(CurtinUniversityandHamesSharley 2013).2

Evidently,thesuburbandreamrunsdeepintheAustralianculturalpsyche(Kelly etal. 2011a),andAustraliaisnotalone.Asaresultofwidespreadpreferencefor

Fig.1.2 The“suburbandream”:MostAustraliansaspiretoownalarge,detachedhouseinthe suburbs.Thisisinpartbecausesuburbangardensoffertheopportunitytogrowfood,havepets, entertainandrelaxinprivateandinnature. Source ImagebyRennieElliscourtesyoftheNational LibraryofAustralia(https://trove.nla.gov.au/version/192344130)

1 Bywesternworld,wemeanprincipallyAustralasia,NorthAmericaandWesternEurope.

2 However,whenresearchersaskedrespondentswhathometheywouldliketolivein,takinginto accountrealitiessuchashousingcostsandincome,respondentsindicatedthatcompromisessuch assemi-detacheddwellingsor,insomecases,apartmentsweresatisfactory(Kellyetal. 2011b).

suburbanliving,theEconomistdeclared,inarecentessay,thatgloballywearenot intheageofurbanizationbutrathertheageofsuburbanization(Wall 2017).

1.1.3TheProblemsofUrbanSprawl

Despiteitsenduringpopularity,suburbansprawlfacesseveralemergingcrises,which threatenitsdominance.Theseincludechallengesinrelationtothedestructionof agriculturallyproductive(e.g.Setoetal. 2000)andbiodiverselandintheperi-urban zones(e.g.Radeloffetal. 2010),ballooningserviceandpublictransportinfrastructurecosts(BrownstoneandGolob 2009;Bentoetal. 2005),andtheconcentrationof socio-economicvulnerabilitiesonthecity’sfringes(DodsonandSipe 2008;Zhao andKaestner 2010;SturmandCohen 2004;NechybaandWalsh 2004)(Fig. 1.3).

Lifeforresidentsofthesuburbanperipherycanbedominatedbylongercommutes, whichresearchershavelinkedtoloweroverallwell-beingandlifesatisfaction(Kelly etal. 2012).Indeed,morethanaquarterofallcommutersinAustralia’sbigcities spendmoretimecommutingthantheydowiththeirchildren(KellyandDonegan 2015).Outersuburbsalsoofferpooreraccesstojobs,whichaffectsresidents’ability tomaintainanddevelopacareer(KellyandDonegan 2015).Concomitantly,newer outersuburbsoftenoffersignificantlylessprivategardenspacethantheirmiddle-ring

Fig.1.3 Theproblemsofsprawl:ContractorsclearoncebiodiverselandontheedgeofPerthfor suburbansprawl. Source DonnaBroun,RichardWeller

1.1Background5

equivalents(Bolleter 2017)duetoNewUrbanism-ledattemptstodeliver“compact” suburbs.Suchapproachcanresultinoutersuburbsthatdonotofferthe“leafygreen” qualitiesoflong-establishedsuburbsnorthetruebenefitsofurbanity,suchaswalkability,vibrancyanddiversity.

1.1.4PlanningforUrbanDensification

Toalleviatetheimpactsofurbansprawl,mitigateandadapttoclimatechange, improvehumanwell-being,andadvancesocietalinclusivity,thereisanemphasis ondeliveringurbandensificationinmostcitiesworldwide.Inpursuitofurbaninfill development,urbanplanningstrategieshavefocusedprimarilyonTransit-Oriented Development(TOD)principles(CalthorpeandFulton 2001),whichadvocatedensificationaroundpublictransportnodesandcorridors(CityofMelbourne 2010; Woodcocketal. 2010;Dittmaretal. 2004).

DespitethewidespreadadoptionofTODideology,manyurbanplanningagenciesarenotachievingtheirtargetsforurbaninfill(BolleterandWeller 2013;Berger etal. 2017).Inpart,thisisbecausetheTODplanningstrategiesfollowarather “inflexible,over-neatvision”ofcities(…)thatsitsatoddswiththeir“increasing geographicalcomplexity”(Forster 2006).Moreover,muchoftheconstructedinfill hasbeenachievedthroughtheindiscriminateandopportunisticsubdivisionofindividualsuburbanlotsby“momanddad”investors(CuffandDahl 2009),which typicallydoesnotreducecarusage,erodesurbanforests,andaggravateslocalcommunities(Bolleter 2016).Indeed,suchapproachestoinfilldevelopmenthaveled tocommunityresistance(theNIMBY3 factor),andhavecreatedwhatonecouncil officialhasreferredtoasa“publicsullenness”(KellyandDonegan 2015).

1.1.5IntroducingGreenspace-OrientedDevelopment

WhiletheprinciplesofTODarewellestablishedandhavesomevalidity,itisour beliefthatweneedacomplementarystrategyforachievinginfilldevelopment.Inthis book,weproposeGreenspace-OrientedDevelopment(GOD).WhileTODcorrelates urbandensificationwithpublictransporthubs,GODcorrelatesurbandensification withsignificant,upgradedpublicgreenspacesorparksthatarerelativelywellserved bypublictransport(Fig. 1.4).Atitsfoundation,aGODapproachbuildsuponthe nowwell-recognizedimportanceofurbangreenspacesindeliveringanarrayof benefitstourbandwellers,andmostimportantly,inunderpinningapproachesfor greatersustainabilityandlivabilityincities.

3 NIMBY“notinmybackyard”.

Fig.1.4 IntroducingGreenspace-OrientedDevelopment(GOD):Inthisbook,weproposeGOD, astrategythatcorrelatesurbandensificationwithsignificant,upgradedpublicgreenspaces

Inthisbook,welaythefoundationsforthiscomplementarystrategyforinfill development.Weexaminethepotentialadvantagesofenhancingtheamenityand ecosystemservicesprovidedbyparksinmiddle-ring,greyfieldsuburbs.Further, weexaminehowtheemploymentofasocial–ecologicalapproachintheredesign ofurbanparksshoulduplifttherealestatevalueofadjacentareas.Inconjunction withrezoning,thisshouldenablegreaterdensificationthatiscommerciallyviable fordevelopers.Wehypothesizethattheredesignofurbanparkstowardsgreater naturalness,4 ecologicalfunction,anddiversityofactiveandpassiverecreational uses,offersanincentiveforresidentstosupportwell-designedinfilldevelopmentat higherdensities.Webelievepolicymakershaveoverlookedthepotentialofsuchan approachasakeystrategyforurbaninfillandrevitalization.

1.1.6HowDoesGODDifferfromRelatedConcepts?

Theideaofusingnaturetoimprovethelivesofthoseincitiesisnotnew.More thanacenturyago,FrederickLawOlmstedusedthenaturalprocessesofwetlandsto guidehisdesignofBoston’sGreenNecklaceseriesofparks.Intheearlytwentiethcentury,urbanthinkersconceivedvariousutopiancitymodelsthatreflectedaclear concernaboutreconcilingthecityandnature,forexample,thegenerousgreenbelts,

4 Thetermnaturalnessgenerallydescribeshowclosealandscapeistoaperceivednaturalstate, inacontinuumbetweennatural,intactlandscapes(e.g.wildernessareas)andnon-natural,highly modifiedlandscapes(e.g.built-upareas)(Odeetal. 2009;Anderson 1991).

1.1Background7

andtheagrariansocialismofEbenezerHoward’s“GardenCity”of1902(Weller 2017).Inthe1960s,IanMcHargmappednaturalareasprovidingimportantservices andprotectedtheminhisplansforurbandevelopment(McDonald 2015).

Morerecently,variousurbandesignandplanningtheorieshavesoughttoreconcile urbanformandgreensystems. GreenUrbanism proposesa“citythatmaximizes landscapes,gardensandbiodiversity”andgreeninfrastructure5 (Lehmann 2010).In asimilarvein, LandscapeUrbanism foregroundslandscapeasthe“ultimatesystem towhichallgoes,andfromwhichallcomes,atemplateforurbanism”(Weller 2006).Likewise, EcologicalUrbanism proposesanapparently“newsensibility–onethathasthecapacitytoincorporateandaccommodatetheinherentconflicts betweenecologyandurbanism”(Mostafavi 2010).Finally, BiodiversitySensitive UrbanDesign isaprotocolforurbandesignthataimstocreateanetbenefittonative speciesandecosystemsthroughtheprovisionofessentialhabitatandfoodresources (GarradandBekessy 2015).

GODbuildsupontheseworthytheories,exploringhowgoodqualityparksthat arerelativelywellservedbypublictransportandaresurroundedbywell-designed higher-densityurbanprecincts,canhelpcreateandactivatemedium-densityhubs insuburbanareas.GODparksnotonlyprovideamyriadofsocialandecological benefitstoresidents,buttheycanalsohaveacrucialroleinactivatingthelocal neighbourhood,andinstillasenseof,andattachmentto,place.

Yet,GOD6 (asweproposeit)differsfromotherconceptualframeworks,such asEcologicalUrbanism,inthatitprovidestoolsthatbridgetheoryandpractice. WhiletheoriessuchasNewUrbanismprovidevarioustools(forexample,theTransectorFromBasedCodes)bywhichdesignerscanimplementtheoreticalconcepts intopractice;LandscapeUrbanism,forinstance,offersnosuchpropsforpractitioners,leavingthemtounderstandhowtheoryshouldbeimplemented(Dennisand McIntosh 2013).Throughthisbook,weaimtobridgethisdivide.Thisisimportant becauseglobally,governanceandtheprocesses“bywhichthingsgetbuilt”area majorstumblingblocktoequitableandsustainableplanning(Bergeretal. 2017). GODisalsodistinguishedfromotherconceptualframeworksbecausetheauthors representtheotherwiseoftendivergentfieldsofurbandesignandurbanecology—a gapweaimtonarrowthroughthissharedpublication.

1.1.7WhoIsThisBookDirectedTowards?

Thisbookismeantforawideaudience,fromresearchersworkinginurbanplanning, urbansustainabilityandlivability,particularlyinthecontextofurbandensification,

5 Greeninfrastructurereferstotheecologicalfeaturesandsystems,fromwetlandstourbanforests, thatprovideahostofbenefitstourbanresidents.Theseincludestormwatercollectionandtreatment, climatemoderation,andcleansingofair,amongothers(Newmanetal. 2009).

6 ReadersshouldnotetheworkoftheGreaterCityCommission,andRodSimpsoninparticular,to correlateurbandensitywithgreenspace.Thishigh-levelpolicyworkhasemergedinparallelwith thisbook(Simpson 2018).

topractitionersinvolvedintheplanning,designandimplementationofurbangreen spacesandresidentialareas.Thisincludesplanners,architects,landscapearchitects, urbandesigners,developers,policymakers,engineers,parkmanagers,environmental andsocialscienceexperts,amongstothers.

1.2OverviewoftheBook’sChapters

Earlierinthischapter,wesetoutthebigissuesfacingsuburbancitiesofthewestern worldinrelationtoachievingurbandensification.Wehavealsointroducedinbrief theconceptofGOD.Herewesetoutanoverviewofthebook’ssubsequentchapters.

InChap. 2,“Transit-OrientedDevelopmentandItsProblems”,wesetoutthe ascendantideologyofTODandexploreitsrelativefailuretodeliverinfilloutcomesin urbandensificationsettingsinAustraliancities.WeidentifythekeybarrierstoTOD, includinglandassemblyanddevelopmentfeasibilityissues,communityresistance, alackofconsumerdemandandinfrastructureprovisionchallenges.Whilethese barriersarenotnew,emergingtrendsalsothreatenthedeliveryofTODplanning. Forexample,thepredictedwidespreadadoptionofFullyAutomatedVehicles(FAVs) couldmeanthatcorrelatingurbandensificationwithpublictransportwillbeof decreasingimportance.

GiventhechallengesofachievingTOD,asubstantialportionofurbandensificationisoccurringinanadhocindiscriminatemanner,atrendweexploreinrelationto Australiancities.UsingPerthasacasestudy,weexplorehowcomparativelymodest landvaluesandcommunityhostilitytohigherdensityinfillhavefavouredbackgroundinfill.Thischapterraisesconcernsaboutthisindiscriminateformofurban densification,asittypicallyyieldslowamenityoutdoorspace,reducesurbanforest cover,doesnotsupportthedevelopmentofculturalamenityandconveniences,and providesminimalaccesstopublictransport.

An“infillgood,sprawlbad”polarity,partlyperpetuatedbytheplanningcommunity,pervadesargumentsabouturbanforminAustralia.Incontradistinction,we argueinthischapterthaturbandensificationisdeliveringmixedresultsinrespectto urbanlivabilityandthatplannersrequireviablealternatives.

InChap. 3,“WhyGOD?TheBenefitsofGreenspace-OrientedDevelopment”, wesetoutacomplementarystrategyforurbandensification,Greenspace-Oriented Development(GOD).ThroughGOD,weproposetoweavetogetherthebenefitsof urbangreenspaceswiththepositiveaspectsofsuburbia—accesstoopenspaceand nature—andthoseofhigh-qualitymedium-densityurbaninfill—publictransport, communityfacilitiesandgoodurbandesign.Asmentionedbefore,GODcorrelates urbandensificationwithsignificant,upgradedpublicgreenspacesorparksthatare relativelywellservedbypublictransport.Theupgradedparks,andtheirconnecting streetscapes,operateasamultifunctional,communal“backyard”forresidentsliving inasurroundinghigher-densityurbanprecinct.

Inthischapter,wedescribeGOD,itskeyprinciplesandthesettingstowhichit ismostsuited.Weexplorethemainbenefitsgreenspacescanofferinthecontext ofincreaseddensity—topeople,biodiversityandthelocalenvironment.Wealso explorethebenefitsthatwell-designed,higher-densityurbanprecinctscanofferto theparksthemselves.

InChap. 4,“AManualforImplementingGreenspace-OrientedDevelopment”,we suggestadetailedprocesstoguideGODimplementation.Overall,weexplainhow theupgradeofsuitableurbanparks—ofarequiredsizeandaccessibilitytopublic transportsystems—combinedwiththerezoningoftheadjacenturbanprecinctcan leadtoincreasinglandvaluesandcatalyzeredevelopment.Specificstepsinclude (1)selectparksforupgrading;(2)upgradeparks;(3)rezonetheurbanprecincts surroundingparks;(4)catalyzeandfacilitateredevelopment;(5)decentralizeservicesinfrastructure;(6)conductneeds-basedassessmentandequipparks;and(7) upgradesurroundingkeystreetscapes.Throughthisstep-by-stepprocess,wesetout howGODcanguideincreasedurbandensification,alongwiththeredesignofpublic greenspacestooffermultiplebenefitstoparkusersandlocalresidents.

Accompanyingeachofthestepsarediagramsthatwillaidplannersandpolicymakersindevelopingapolicyforurbandensification.Moreover,wehaveproduced three-dimensionalvisualizationsthatpeoplecanimaginethemselvesintoandplannerscanusetokick-startcommunityengagementexercises.AsKimDoveyexplains, oneofthemajorblockagesto“transformationalchange”inAustraliancitieshasbeen a“lackofdesignvisionthatcapturesthepublicimaginationformoresustainable urbanfutures”(DoveyandWoodcock 2014).Thisbookaimstotacklethislacuna head-on.

InChap. 5,“Conclusion”,webrieflysummarizethemainfindingsofthebook, considerkeyimplications,anddirectresearcherstopotentiallyfertileareasforfuture research.

1.3Conclusion

RobertMcDonald,LeadScientistatTheNatureConservancy,hasstatedthatthe mostsuccessfulcitiesinthetwenty-firstcenturywilldothebestjobofprotecting theessentialecosystemservicesnatureprovidestohumans(McDonald 2015).While Australianstateplanningagencieshavesoughtthroughurbandensification,toprotect theecosystemservicesprovidedbyperi-urbangreensystems,inmanyinstancesthey arefailing.Thisisprimarilybecausealoveforsuburbanlivingrunsdeepinthepsyche ofAustralianpeople.Inresponsetothissituation,thisbooksetsoutacomplementary approachfordensifyingAustraliancities—onethatworkswith,ratherthanoverrides, Australia’sprevailingsuburbansensibility.

AndersonJE(1991)Aconceptualframeworkforevaluatingandquantifyingnaturalness.Conserv Biol5(3):347–352. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1991.tb00148.x

BentoAM,CropperML,MobarakAM,VinhaK(2005)Theeffectsofurbanspatialstructure ontraveldemandintheUnitedStates.RevEconStat87(3):466–478. https://doi.org/10.1162/ 0034653054638292

BergerA,KotkinJ,GuzmanC(2017)Introduction.In:BergerA,KotkinJ,GuzmanC(eds)Infinite suburbia.MIT,Boston,pp10–23

BolleterJ(2016)Backgroundnoise:areviewoftheeffectsofbackgroundinfillonurbanliveability inPerth.AustPlan10:1–14

BolleterJ(2017)Fringebenefits?AreviewofoutersuburbandevelopmentonPerth’sfringesin relationtostategovernmentgoalsconcerningthenaturalenvironmentandefficienttransport connectivity.AustPlan54(2)

BolleterJ,WellerR(2013)MadeinAustralia:thefutureofAustraliancities.UniversityofWestern AustraliaPublishing,Perth

BrownstoneD,GolobTF(2009)Theimpactofresidentialdensityonvehicleusageandenergy consumption.JUrbanEcon65(1):91–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2008.09.002

BruegmannR(2017)Theanti-suburbancrusade.In:BergerA,KotkinJ,GuzmanC(eds)Infinite suburbia.MIT,Boston,pp26–37

CalthorpeP,FultonW(2001)Theregionalcity.IslandPress,Washington CityofMelbourne(2010)TransformingAustraliancitiesforamorefinanciallyviableandsustainablefuture.CityofMelbourne,Melbourne

CuffD,DahlP-J(2009)RxfortheR1:sustainingtheneighbourhood.In:BolchoverJ,SolomonJ (eds)Sustainanddevelop.306090,Inc,NewYork,pp24–33

CurtinUniversity,HamesSharley(2013)Thehousingwe’dchoose:astudyforPerthandPeel. DepartmentofHousing,DepartmentofPlanning,Perth

DennisM,McIntoshA(2013)Landscapeandthecity.Landscapeurbanismanditsdiscontents: dissimulatingthesustainablecity.NewSocietyPublishers,GabriolaIsland DittmarH,BelzerD,AutlerG(2004)Anintroductiontotransit-orienteddevelopment.In:Dittmar H,OhlandG(eds)NewTransitTown:bestpracticesintransit-orienteddevelopment.IslandPress, Washington

DodsonJ,SipeN(2008)Unsettlingsuburbia:thenewlandscapeofoilandmortgagevulnerability inAustraliancities.GriffithUniversity,Brisbane

DoveyK,WoodcockI(2014)IntensifyingMelbourne:transit-orientedurbandesignforresilient urbanfutures.MelbourneSchoolofDesign,TheUniversityofMelbourne,Melbourne ForsterC(2006)Thechallengeofchange:Australiancitiesandurbanplanninginthenewmillennium.GeogrRes44(2):173–182

GarradG,BekessyS(2015)Biodiversitysensitiveurbandesign:creatingurbanenvironments thataregoodforpeopleandgoodfornature.RMIT. https://ggarrardresearch.wordpress.com/ biodiversity-sensitive-urban-design/.Accessed16June2019

HaganS(2017)Metabolicsuburbsorthevirtueoflowdensities.In:BergerA,KotkinJ,Guzman C(eds)Infinitesuburbia.MIT,Boston,pp468–477

KellyJ-F,DoneganP(2015)Citylimits:whyAustraliancitiesarebrokenandhowwecanfixthem. MelbourneUniversityPress,Melbourne

KellyJ-F,BreadonP,ReichlJ(2011a)Gettingthehousingwewant.GrattanInstitute,Melbourne KellyJ-F,WeldmannB,WalshM(2011b)Thehousingwe’dchoose.GrattanInstitute,Melbourne KellyJ-F,BreadonP,DavisC,HunterA,MaresP,MullerworthD,WeidmannB(2012)Social cities.GrattanInstitute,Melbourne

LehmannS(2010)Theprinciplesofgreenurbanism:transformingthecityforsustainability.Earthscan,UK

McDonaldR(2015)Conservationforcities:howtoplanandbuildnaturalinfrastructure.Island Press,Washington

McNeillJR,EngelkeP(2016)Thegreatacceleration:anenvironmentalhistoryoftheanthropocene since1945.HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge

MostafaviM(2010)Whyecologicalurbanism?Whynow?In:MostafaviM,DohertyG(eds) Ecologicalurbanism.LarsMullerPublishers,Baden NechybaTJ,WalshRP(2004)Urbansprawl.JEconPerspect18(4):177–200. https://doi.org/10. 1257/0895330042632681

NewmanP,BeatleyT,BoyerH(2009)Resilientcities.IslandPress,Washington OdeÅ,FryG,TveitMS,MessagerP,MillerD(2009)Indicatorsofperceivednaturalnessasdrivers oflandscapepreference.JEnvironManag90(1):375–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman. 2007.10.013

RadeloffVC,StewartSI,HawbakerTJ,GimmiU,PidgeonAM,FlatherCH,HammerRB,Helmers DP(2010)HousinggrowthinandnearUnitedStatesprotectedareaslimitstheirconservation value.ProcNatlAcadSci107(2):940–945. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0911131107

SchneiderA,WoodcockCE(2008)Compact,dispersed,fragmented,extensive?Acomparisonof urbangrowthintwenty-fiveglobalcitiesusingremotelysenseddata,patternmetricsandcensus information.UrbanStud45(3):659–692. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098007087340

SetoKC,KaufmannRK,WoodcockCE(2000)LandsatrevealsChina’sfarmlandreserves,but they’revanishingfast.Nature406(6792):121–121

SetoKC,GuneralpB,HutyraL(2012)Globalforecastsofurbanexpansionto2030anddirect impactsonbiodiversityandcarbonpools.PNAS109(40):16083–16088

SimpsonR(2018)Startwithlandscape.AustralianInstituteofLandscapeArchitects. http:// www.aila.org.au/iMIS_Prod/AILAWeb/Media_Releases/AILA_Calls_for_a_National_Green_ Infrastructure_Strategy.aspx.Accessed28June2019

SturmR,CohenDA(2004)Suburbansprawlandphysicalandmentalhealth.PublicHealth 118(7):488–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2004.02.007

UnitedNations(2017)Thesustainabledevelopmentgoalsreport2017.UnitedNations,NewYork UnitedNations(2018)Worldurbanizationprospects:the2018revision[keyfacts].Departmentof EconomicandSocialAffairs,PopulationDivision

UnitedNationsGeneralAssemblyDraftOutcomeDocumentoftheUnitedNationsConferenceon HousingandSustainableUrbanDevelopment(HabitatIII),2016.DocumentA/CONF

WallA(2017)Sprawlisdead:longlivethelow-densitycity.In:BergerA,KotkinJ,GuzmanC (eds)Infinitesuburbia.MIT,Boston,pp571–594

WellerR(2006)Globaltheory,localpractice.Kerb15:66–71

WellerR(2017)Thecityisnotanegg:westernurbanizationinrelationtochangingconceptionsof nature.In:SteinerF,ThompsonG,CarbonellA(eds)Natureandcities:theecologicalimperative inurbandesignandplanning.LincolnInstituteofLandPolicy,Cambridge,pp31–49

WoodcockI,DoveyK,WollanS,BeyerleA(2010)Modellingthecompactcity;capacitiesand visionsforMelbourne.AustPlan47(2):94–104

ZhaoZ,KaestnerR(2010)Effectsofurbansprawlonobesity.JHealthEcon29(6):779–787. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2010.07.006

Chapter2

Transit-OrientedDevelopment(TOD) andItsProblems

Abstract Inthischapter,wesetouttheascendantideologyofTODandreview thebarrierstoitsimplementationinurbandensificationsettingsinsuburbancities. Thesebarrierscanincludelandassemblyanddevelopmentfeasibilityissues,communityresistance,lackofconsumerdemandandinfrastructureprovisionchallenges. Asaresultofthesebarriers,attemptstoimplementTODhaveprovenachallenge. Moreover,asubstantialportionofurbandensificationisoccurringinanadhocmanner,atrendweexploreinrelationtoAustraliancities.Thischapterraisesconcerns aboutthisindiscriminateformofurbandensification,asitoffersminimalaccessto publictransport,contributeslittletourbanactivation,compromisesurbanforests, andentrenchescommunityoppositiontoinfilldevelopment.Giventheseissues,this chapterstressestheneedforacomplementarystrategytosupporturbandensification insuburbancities.

Keywords Transit-OrientedDevelopment · Urbanconsolidation · Infill development · Greyfields · Publictransport · Sustainability · Urbanlivability · Publicopenspace · Urbanparks

2.1AnOverviewofTOD

Transit-OrientedDevelopment(TOD)planningaimstoconcentrateurbandevelopment—includinghigh-densityresidentialandoffice/commercialdevelopment—in precinctsaroundpublictransporthubs(usuallywithinan800m,10-minutewalk), inordertoincreasepublictransportuseanddeliverurbaninfill(Curtis 2012).Because ofitsapparentlogicandrelativesimplicity(atleastinconcept),plannersarepursuingTODstrategiesinmanycitiesthroughouttheworld(Curtisetal.2010).Given theascendencyofTODideology,thischapterprovidesatimelycritiqueregarding itseffectivenessindeliveringurbandensificationinAustraliancities.Nonetheless, readersshouldbemindfulthatachievingurbandensificationinsuburbancitiesisa difficultthing.Wedonotmeantodenigratethesincereeffortsofpractitionersto achieveTOD,insteadtopointouttheneedforcomplementarystrategies.

©TheAuthor(s),underexclusivelicensetoSpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG2020 J.BolleterandC.E.Ramalho, Greenspace-OrientedDevelopment, SpringerBriefsinGeography, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29601-8_2

142Transit-OrientedDevelopment(TOD)andItsProblems

Theideathattransitmightorientdevelopmentiscertainlynotnew.Inthisrespect, PeterCalthorpeconsidershimself“areviverratherthananoriginatorofideas”(Carlton 2009).Forexample,EbenezerHoward’ssatellitecitiesweretobeenabledbyrail transitaccess.Ashedescribedintheearlytwentiethcentury,hisplanningconceptwas focusedonrailnetworksastheprimaryconduitbetweenareasofurbandevelopment (Carlton 2009).Nonetheless,PeterCalthorpecodifiedtheideaofTransit-Oriented Development(TOD)inthelate1980s,andTODbecameacentraltenetofmodernplanningwhenCalthorpepublished“TheNewAmericanMetropolis”in1993 (Carlton 2009).

Globally,TODproponentsclaimthatcompacturbanformco-locatedwithpublic transportnodeswilldeliveramultitudeofbenefits.Thesebenefitsincludemaking publictransportationmoreeconomicallyviable(Hagan 2017),increasedmobilityof low-incomehouseholds,aboosttolocalservices,andlessautomobiledependency, whichinturncanhelpreduceenergyconsumptionandgreenhousegasemissions, andencouragewalking(CongressofNewUrbanism 2016).Proponentsbelievethat TODwillalsoincreasetheefficiencyofinfrastructureinvestment,andreducethe costofmaintenance,particularlyforlinesystems,suchasenergyandwatersupply, andwastedisposal.Finally,advocatesforTODbelieveitwillprovideresidentswith adiversityoflocaljobs,stimulateknowledgediffusionandthuseconomicgrowth, allofwhichcontributetoahigherqualityoflifeforresidents(OECD 2012).Because ofthehordeofperceivedbenefits,plannershavewidelyacceptedtheideologyof TOD.Asaresult,“nowalmosteverymetropolitanregionwithmajorpublictransport infrastructurehasadoptedsomeformofhigh-densityTODscenario”(Carlton 2009).

2.2TODPlanninginAustralianCities

ReflectingtheascendencyofTODideology,allAustralianStateandTerritorycapital citiesplantoachieveurbandensificationaroundpublictransportnodes(Department ofInfrastructure 2017;DepartmentofPlanning 2017;DepartmentofPlanningand WesternAustralianPlanningCommission 2015;VictoriaStateGovernment 2017). Throughsuchdevelopment,theseplansattempttoavoidAustraliancitiessprawling inwhatisrecognizedasatypicallyunhealthy,socio-economicallystratified,unsustainableandunproductivemanner(KellyandDonegan 2015).Tothisend,acrossthe nation,cityplanningpolicies,onaverage,stipulatethat60%ofallnewresidential developmentshouldbeinfill,yetlessthanthatistypicallybeingachieved(Bolleter andWeller 2013).

Theflagshipsofstategovernmentplanningpolicyforurbandensificationare ActivityCentres.UndergirdingtheplanningoftheseActivityCentresaretheprinciplesofTOD.ActivityCentrespoliciesaredefinedhereaspoliciesthatseekto clustercivic,commercialandmid-tohigh-densityresidentiallandusesaroundpublictransportnodes,ratherthanallowingthemtodisperseinanunplannedmanner whereverthemarketchoosestolocatethem(GoodmanandMoloney 2004).Ina nationalefforttotransitionfrommonocentrictopolycentricurbansystems,State

andTerritorypoliciesinAustraliahaveidentified343ActivityCentresforinfill developmentnationwide(BolleterandWeller 2013).

2.3WhatArethePredominantBarrierstoTOD inAustralianCities?

Whenconsideredatthemetropolitanscale,theco-locationofresidentialdensity, commercialactivityandpublictransportfoundinAustralia’sActivityCentreplanningappearscommonsense,butontheground,itconfrontsmanybarrierstoimplementation.Asaresult,relativetootherrealestateinvestments,TODsareoftenmore complex,takemoretime,areriskierandareultimatelymoreexpensive(Carlton 2009).Toexplainthissituation,wewilldiscussthesebarriersastheyrelatetoTOD inurbandensificationsettings,infourbroadcategories:communitybarriers,developmentfeasibilitybarriers,governancebarriersandemergingbarriers.

2.3.1CommunityBarriers

Community-relatedbarrierstoTODinurbandensificationsettingsaretwofold.First, existingresidentsareoftenunreceptivetoincreasesinurbandensity,andsecond prospectiveresidentsoftendonotaspiretolivinginActivityCentres.

DevelopmentwithinexistingActivityCentresiteshassometimesbeendifficult becauseofcommunityresistance.Densityincreasesareoftenperceivedasathreatto thesuburbanlife(DoveyandWoodcock 2014).AsWendySarkissiantellsus,“Ahuge battlehasbeenwagingformorethantwodecadesaboutthismatterinAustralia…” (Sarkissian 2013)—andthatapublic“sullenness”existsinrelationtourbaninfillin suburbanneighbourhoods(KellyandDonegan 2015).AsKimDoveyexplains,our communitiesaresayingtous,“loudlyandforcefully,wedon’twant4/5/6storeysin ourActivityCentres,wewouldliketoretainthetwostoreystreetscape…”(Dovey andWoodcock 2014).Communitiesoftenconveyseveralkeyreasonsforthisopposition.Theseincludefearsrelatedtoperceivedincreasedtrafficandparkingproblems (Parliamentarian 2018;LocalGovernmentplanner 2018),decliningpropertyprices (DevelopmentInstituterepresentative 2018),andaperceptionthattrainsarealready overcrowdedandthatTODwilljustmakeabadsituationworse(Rice 2016).These arecompoundedbyconcernsaboutalackofprivacyandamenity(Parliamentarian 2018),thedestructionofurbanforests(CommunityRepresentative 2018),loss ofheritageandneighbourhoodcharacter,thefeelingthatTODdevelopmentsdon’t belongintheirneighbourhood,andfinallycynicismthatTODisjustaboutdevelopers “makingalotofmoneyattheircommunity’sexpense”(Rice 2016).

WhilethereisampleevidenceofcommunityresistancetoActivityCentredevelopment,thereiscomparativelylittleevidencethatprospectiveresidentsaspireto

livinginActivityCentres(HollingandHaslamMcKenzie 2010).Astudybased inPerthentitled“TheHousingWe’dChoose”providessomeinsights,whereby researchersexploredtherelativeimportanceofawiderangeofhousingattributes soastoestablishwhathouseholdsdesired(CurtinUniversityandHamesSharley 2013).1 Significantly,70%ofsurveyrespondentsrankedbeing“nearashoppingcentre”asthemostimportantdwellingattribute.ThisrevealsthatdwellingsinActivity Centresplannedaroundshoppingcentresarepotentiallydesirable,atleastinthis respect.However,over40%ofrespondentsbelievedhousinglocatedawayfroma railwaylinewasimportant(CurtinUniversityandHamesSharley 2013),probably duetoconcernsabouttrainnoise,privacyandcommutercarparking(Hollingand HaslamMcKenzie 2010).Moreover,65%ofrespondentsregardedadwellingbeing “awayfrombusyroads”asbeingimportant(2013),thisdwellingattributeranking asthefourthmostimportant.MajorroadsbisectmanyofPerth’sproposedActivity Centres.ThebenefitsofanurbanlifestyleaspromotedinActivityCentresalsodo notseemtobethatpopular.Forinstance,beingnearcafesandrestaurantsranked 12th,easyaccesstothecity(throughpublictransport)ranked22nd,havingarange oflocalemploymentopportunitiesalsoranked35thandeasyaccesstobars/pubsand nightliferanked39th.InPerth,atleast,peopledonotseemtodesirethebenefitsof TODasmuchaspolicymakershaveanticipated.

2.3.2DevelopmentFeasibilityBarriers

ThedevelopmentofTOD-drivenActivityCentresfacesmanyotherbarriersinadditiontoarelativelackofcommunitybuy-in.Trainstationsurroundingsoftenhave heritagebuildingstock,aretypicallycomplex“knots”ofintersectingroadandrail infrastructureandhavefragmentedlandownership.Thecomplexarrayofvested interestsattachedtothesefactorsisamajorconstraintinActivityCentreplanning (Murphy 2012).Compoundingthisisthatthereremainsahighdemandforexpansivecarparksadjacenttopublictransportsothatpeoplecan“parkandride”,which conflictswithattemptstocreatewalkableandactivatedActivityCentres(Holling andHaslamMcKenzie 2010).Moreover,ActivityCentresitesoftendonothave adequateserviceinfrastructureandthecostsofupgradescanaffectthefeasibilityof adevelopment(RowleyandPhibbs 2012).Therelateduncertaintyarounddeveloper contributionsand“whowillpay”isamajorimpedimenttoTODinfilldevelopment (RowleyandPhibbs 2012).

1 Asubsetofthisstudywasanonlinesurveyentitled“WhatMattersMost”inwhichresearchersasked 866peopletoratethefeaturesofahometheyplacedthehighestpriorityon.Respondentsranked 76attributesarrangedintofivebroadcategories:convenience,localamenities,localenvironment, dwellingdesignanddwellingfeatures.

2.3.3GovernanceBarriers

TOD-drivenActivityCentredevelopmentrequirestheparticipationofmanyactors andoccursinafragmentedregulatoryenvironment,addingcomplexity,time,uncertainty,riskandcosttoprojects(Dittmaretal. 2004).ChallengestoActivityCentre developmentarisefromthepoliticalstructurethatrealizesinfilldevelopment.The stategovernmentsetsinfilltargetsforlocalgovernmentareas,yetlocalgovernmentscarrymuchoftheresponsibilityforinfilldevelopmentdecisions(Doveyand Woodcock 2014).Moreover,localgovernmentsarefrequently“electedtoenforcethe anti-developmentviewsoftheirresidents”and,assuch,disperseasmuchinfilldevelopmentinaformthatisaspalatabletoexistingresidentsaspossible(i.e.inalow-to medium-densityanddispersedpattern)(DoveyandWoodcock 2014).Finally,local councilsaretypicallynotstaffedtoadequatelynavigatethecomplicationsofTOD (DoveyandWoodcock 2014)orfundedtodeliverthelevelofinvestmentActivity Centre’srequire(Grayetal. 2010).

Moreover,whiletherehasbeensubstantialinvestmentinpassengerrailsincethe 1990s,thedominanceoftransportplanningoverland-useplanning—atthestate governmentlevel—isevidentinplanningforrailnetworks.Theprimaryfocushas generallybeenontransportfunction,andonlycomparativelyrecentlyhastherebeen arealattempttointegratethetransportnetworkcarefullywithland-useactivity (Curtis 2010).Theresultisoftenalackofland-usetransportintegration—isolated publictransporthubsthatarebeyondwalkingdistancefromlow-densityresidential areas(Curtis 2010).

2.3.4EmergingBarriers

WhileTOD-drivenActivityCentreimplementationalreadyfacesconsiderablebarriers,otherpotentialchallengesareemerging.Forexample,withthearrivalofselfdrivingcarsitispossiblethatthelineseparatingpublicandprivatetransportation willerodeasuserssummonandsharevehiclesofvariedsizesfordifferentkindsof trips(Bruegmann 2017).Itisquitepossiblethatthiskindofsharedvehicle,allowing directmovementfromanypointAtopointB,willlessentherequirementforpublic transportationintheformofbusesandtrains,andwillworkagainstthedeliveryof compactcities(Falconeretal. 2016).Aswithmanyotheradvancesintechnology overthelastcentury,thesedevelopmentscouldallowpeoplemorefreedomtochoose exactlywhatkindofenvironmenttheywouldprefertolivein(Bruegmann 2017). This,inalllikelihood,wouldbelow-densitysuburbansettings(Hagan 2017).

Anotheremergingtransporttype,“tracklesstrams”—referredtoasAutonomous RailTransit(ART)—alsopotentiallyreducestheneedforTOD-drivenActivityCentredevelopment.ARTvehiclesarebasedontechnologydevelopedinEuropeand Chinabytakingtechnologyfromhigh-speedrailandutilizingitinabus(Newman 2018).Theresultisessentiallyanelectricbusthathasthespeed,capacityandride

182Transit-OrientedDevelopment(TOD)andItsProblems

qualitiesoflightrailwithits“autonomousopticalguidancesystem,train-likebogies withdoubleaxlesandspecialhydraulicsandtyres”(Newman 2018).TheseART vehiclescanalsomovesignificantnumbersofpeople.Thetypicalthree-carriage systemcanaccommodate300people(Newman 2018).Finally,ARTvehiclescan alsosidesteptheworstaspectsoflightrail/trams,namely,disruptionandcost.Itcan takeyearstolaytracksforlightrail/trams,causingmajorupheavaltolocalbusinesses (Newman 2018).2 TheresultofsuchatransformativetransporttypecouldbeART vehiclestravellingdownmajorroads,effectivelyservicingbroadersuburbanareas withefficiencyandflexibility.Henceforth,knotsofurbandensityaroundheavyrail stations—forinstance—maybesuperfluous.

2.4WhatIsOurRecordforDeliveringTODinAustralian Cities?

WhilecontemporaryTODprinciplesoriginatedintheUS,attemptingtoimplementTODtherehasprovenachallenge.Notsurprisinglygiventhebarriers,only asmallpercentageoftheanticipatedTODprojectshavebeendeveloped,andwhat hasbeenbuiltdoesnotfullyreflectCalthorpe’soriginalvision(Carlton 2009).As HankDittmarexplainsinrelationtoanoverarchingNorthAmericanstudy,“Sadly, ourreviewoftheprojectsthatareemergingacrossthecountryrevealsthatmanyof thefirstphasesofthesenew‘transittowns’failtomeet[TOD’s]objectives”(Dittmar etal. 2004).AsIanCarltondeclares,littlehasactuallychangedinthebehaviourof AmericansortheirpreferencesfortransporttosignifyadesireforTODincomparison tocar-orientedsuburbia(Carlton 2009).Asaresult“few,ifany,TODshavebeen developedwithoutpublicsubsidies”(Carlton 2009).Intoday’srestrictedfunding environment,thismeansthatmanyTODdevelopmentswillnotbefeasible.

ThesituationissimilarinAustralia—withsomeisolatedexceptions.Asaresult ofthebarrierstoTODwesetoutearlier,thereexistsa“divergencebetweenthe compactcityimaginedinmetropolitanplansandwhatisoccurringontheground inAustraliancities”(Grayetal. 2010).Therealityofurbandevelopmentcontrasts starklywiththeTODvision.CliveForstermakesthepointthatthissimplisticvision ofmetropolitansustainabilityiscontradictedbythestructuresofourcities,which remaindifferentiatedanddispersedratherthanneatlymulti-nucleated(Gleesonetal. 2010).DespitetheapplicationofTODthinkinginPerth,Adelaide,Melbourne,SydneyandSouthEastQueensland,fullimplementationhasprovenachallenge(Kelly andDonegan 2015;GoodmanandMoloney 2004;Burton 2017;Goodman 2017; Randolphetal. 2017).Thisisdespitethefactthatsuchpolicieshavebeeninplace foraconsiderableamountoftime,insomecasessincethe1980s(Murphy 2012).

2 Indeed,Sydney’slightrailprojecthascostedover$120millionperkm.Incontrast,theinfrastructureforARTvehiclesapparentlycostsonly$6–8millionperkm,andproponentsoptimistically believe“itcanbeputintoaroadsystemoveraweekend”(Newman 2018).

AsJagoDodsonexplains,“…despitemorethantwodecadesofdensificationpolicy,acrossAustralia’smajorcitiestherearevastsuburbanregionsoflowdensity development”(2010).Indeed,Australiancitieshavesomeofthelowestpopulation densitiesintheworld—Melbourne,Adelaide,PerthandBrisbaneaveragingonly16, 14,12and9peopleperha,respectively(Hurleyetal. 2017).Moreover,the2016 CensusofPopulationandHousingfoundthatonly10%ofallpeopleinAustralia spentCensusnightinanapartment(AustralianBureauofStatistics 2017).Theevidenceshowsthatdespitetherhetoricandagendaofplanningauthoritiesandexperts, thesuburbanhomeremainsthepreferredchoiceoffamilies(Elliot 2017).

Detractorsofsuburbanlivingpointtorapidlyrisingapartmentprojectsininner cityareasintheirquestforevidencetoprovethatAustraliansarenowdesiringhighdensityhousingoverthesuburbanalternative(Elliot 2017).Indeed,Elliotexplains thatthe“rapidescalationinapartmentconstructioninAustralia’scapitalcitiesislittle morethanafrenzyofspeculativeinvestment”(Elliot 2017).Thedatapartlysupports suchclaims.The2016CensusshowedthatforallapartmentsacrossAustralia,well overhalf(59%)oftenantswererenting.Incontrast,inthesamesurvey,only21% ofseparatehouseswererented(AustralianBureauofStatistics 2017).

Privatevehicleownershipanduseprovidesfurtherevidencefortherelativefailure ofTODplanning.In2016,nearlyhalf(47%)ofhouseholdslivinginapartments hadoneregisteredmotorvehicle—generallyparkedon-site,and16%ofapartment householdsuphelda“two-car”lifestyle(AustralianBureauofStatistics 2017).While thetotaldistancedrivenandtotalnumberofcartripspeoplearetakinginAustralian citiesaregrowingmoreslowlythaninpreviousdecades,caruseisstillgrowing overall(KellyandDonegan 2015).Flexibilityandconvenience,combinedwiththe car-friendlystructureofourmajorcities,meansprivatevehiclesaccountforalmost 90%ofpassengerkilometerstravelled(InfrastructureAustralia 2018).Evenwith substantialmodeshiftdrivenbynewinvestmentorpolicychanges,thisisunlikely tochangesignificantlyinthecomingyears(InfrastructureAustralia 2018).

Problemsindeliveringurbandensificationinrelationtopublictransporthubs have(inpart)ledtorespectedcommentators,suchastheformercommissionerof theNationalCapitalDevelopmentCommission,TonyPowell,todescribeAustralia’s metropolitanplanningas“asadparadeoffailingcapitalcitystrategicplans”more concernedwithpublicrelationsthanplanning(Elliot 2017).Tofurtherillustratethis point,inthefollowingsection,wewillsetoutabriefhistoryofattemptstodeliver TODinAustralia’smajorcapitalcities.

2.4.1Sydney

Sydneyhasbeenplanningforurbandensificationsincethe1980s(Randolphetal. 2017).Inconjunctionwithhighlandcostsandsubstantialpopulationgrowth,thishas seenthemixofdwellingsacrossSydneychangesignificantlyinthelasttwodecades. Therehasbeenadeclineindetachedhomesandincreasingamountsofmediumandhigh-densityapartmentbuildings,wellabovenationalaverages(Randolphetal.

2017).Nevertheless,Sydneyisalow-densitycitybyinternationalstandards,and suburbanhousingremainsthecity’sdominantbuiltform,with57%ofthepopulation livingindetachedhomes(InfrastructureAustralia 2018).

Moreover,therehavebeensubstantialchallengesindeliveringurbandensification associatedwithpublictransporthubs.AnassessmentbyplanningconsultantPat Fenshamin2015islessthanflattering.Hegaverecorded“fails”onseveralkey issues,proactivepublictransportinitiativesandunconvincingcommitmenttothe polycentriccityagenda(i.e.ActivityCentrenetworks)(Randolphetal. 2017).Further evidenceisaNewSouthWalesgovernmentreportthatacknowledgedthatfrom2000 to2010,developershadbuiltonlyfourintennewhomesinSydneyin“transitnodes” within800mofatrainstationor400mofamajorbusstoporlightrailstation(Kelly andDonegan 2015).Thispatterniscertainlynothingnew;the1996Censusrevealed thatSydneyhadthehighestconcentrationofmedium-andhigh-densityhousing unservedbyrailservices(Troy 2004).TheNewSouthWalesgovernmentreport forecastthatthispatternwouldcontinueto2020(KellyandDonegan 2015).

2.4.2Melbourne

MelbournehasbeensubjecttomanypoliciesaimedatdirectinginvestmentanddevelopmentintodesignatedActivityCentres.Duringtheearly1980s,themetropolitan planningauthorityintroducedaDistrictCentrepolicy.Bythemid-1980s,thispolicy waswidelyjudgedtohavefailed(LoganandMcLoughlininGoodmanandMoloney 2004)andtheKennettstategovernmentgraduallyweakenedandthenabandonedit (Goodman 2017).Areviewin1991statedthatsupportfortheDistrictCentrePolicy hadbeenadhocandcalledforacoordinatedandrenewedefforttomakethepolicy work(GoodmanandMoloney 2004).

Despitesuchfailures,plannerscontinuedtobasesubsequentpolicydocuments onTODideology.AkeyelementoftheMelbourne2030plan,releasedin2002,was thedesignationofActivityCentresasappropriatefociforcommercial,retailand officedevelopment,andhigherdensityhousing.Melbourne2030identifiedahierarchyoffivecategoriesofcentres,fromthecentralcitytoneighbourhoodcentres (Goodman 2017).Itnamed114centrescomprising25principal,79majorand10specializedcentres,andproposedanincredible900neighbourhoodcentresthroughout themetropolitanregion(Goodman 2017).

Unsurprisinglygivenitslackoffocus,Melbourne2030generatedampledebate aroundits“failuretodeliveronwhatithadpromised”(Goodman 2017).Fiveyears afteritspublication,anExpertPanelconductedanauditofprogress(AuditExpert GroupGoodman 2017).Itrevealedthattheproportionofnewgreenfielddevelopment hadcontinuedtorisesteeplyandconcludedthat“on-the-ground”implementation wasdeficientinimportantareas,includingtheredirectionofresidentialgrowthto existingareas,andincreaseddevelopmentinActivityCentres(Goodman 2017). Indeed,thelistofActivityCentreswasfartooextensivetoprovideafocusfor investmentinurbandensification(GoodmanandMoloney 2004;Goodman 2017).

Asaresult,somecommentatorsdescribedMelbourne2030as“superficialtothe pointofridiculousness”(Elliot 2017).

AnAustralianHousingandUrbanResearchInstitute(AHURI)studyfoundthat theoverallamountofnewhousingbuiltwithin1kmofamajorActivityCentre didnotincreasesubstantiallyaftertheintroductionofMelbourne2030upuntil2007 (Goodmanetal.2004,pp.45–46).Thestudyalsofoundnoincreaseintheproportion ofnewhousinglocatedwithin1kmoftrainstationsacrossthemetropolitanarea, anotherambitionofMelbourne2030(Goodman 2017).Forexample,intheCity ofMonash,insoutheasternMelbourne,morethan98%ofhousingdevelopments builtfrom2000to2006werebetweentwoandsevendwellings.Thesesmaller developmentsprovidedaroundnineoutoftennewhomesinthatarea(Kellyand Donegan 2015),yetmostwerenotwithinwalkingdistanceofpublictransport.

Asaresultoftheserelativepolicyfailures,Melbourneexhibitsstrongdifferentiationinhousingsupplybetweenlargedetachedsuburbanhouses(withfourormore bedrooms)ingreenfieldareasandnewapartments,mostwhicharesmallwithoneor twobedrooms,locatedinthecentralcityandinnersuburbs(Goodman 2017).Despite theirnumbers,arecentMelbournestudyconcludedthatasmanyasoneinfiveapartmentswerevacant,leadingtothedescriptionofnewprojectsas“ghosttowers”(Elliot 2017).Thisispartlyreflectedinthedatathatindicates70%ofMelbournianslive indetachedhomesandonlyaround15%liveinapartments(InfrastructureAustralia 2018).Thismaybebecausethelatterdonotsuitmanyhouseholds,whowouldlike tobeabletochoosesemi-detachedhomesorlow-riseapartmentsinestablishedinner andmiddlesuburbs,veryfewofwhicharebeingbuilt(KellyandDonegan 2015).

Thecurrentplan,PlanMelbourne2017–2050,recentlyreleasedbytheVictorianstategovernment(VictoriaStateGovernment 2017)providesnewnamesand classificationsforActivityCentres.Itignoresthestridentcriticismoftheprevious policythattherewere“toomanynamedcentrestobemeaningful”,andincluded alltheprincipalandmajorcentresfromthesupersededplans(Goodman 2017).In summary,whileawiderangeofstakeholdershavespentsubstantialtimeandeffort toproducegrandplansforTODinMelbourne,intheend,theyhavehadmuchless effectthanambition(Goodman 2017;KellyandDonegan 2015).

2.4.3SouthEastQueensland

SouthEastQueenslanddenotestheconurbationbetweenBrisbane,theSunshine CoastandtheGoldCoast.Inresponsetothesprawlingnatureofthisconurbation, plannersintheregionhavebeenstrivingforurbandensificationfordecades.PlannershavebasedthesestrategicvisionsonTODideologyandenvisagedaregionof “inter-connectedcommunitiesthatweremoreself-containedintermsofservicesand employmentandassuch,wouldgeneratelessdemandfortravelinprivatevehicles” (Burton 2017).

Reflectingthis,SouthEastQueensland’s2005planproposedaninfilltargetof 40%(SouthEastQueenslandRegionalOrganisationofCouncils 2005),the2009plan atargetof50%(DepartmentofInfrastructureandPlanning 2009)andthecurrentplan atargetof60%(Burton 2017;DepartmentofInfrastructure 2017).Whiletheseare relativelymodestincomparisonwithsomestategovernmentinfilltargets,manyin thedevelopmentindustryremainskepticalaboutachievingthem,pointingtobarriers toinfilldevelopmentsuchasthelackofsubstantialdevelopmentsites,thechallenges ofsiteassemblyandhigherconstructioncosts,allofwhichleadtohigherpricesfor newdevelopmentsandreducedprojectfeasibility(Burton 2017).

Althoughacademicshaverecognizedtheseseriesofregionalplansandstrategiesaslaudable(GleesonandSteele,MinneryandLowChoyinBurton 2017),the variousplanshavealsobeensubjecttocriticism,mostlybecauseoftheirfailureto delivertheirstrategicvisionsontheground(Burton 2017).AsMikeGillenexplains, “contemporarypatternsofeconomicdevelopment,housingandtravelpreferences donotcorrelatewithaneatandorderedpolycentricspatialform”(Gillen 2006).As withotherAustraliancities,thedivergencebetweenpolycentricTOD-drivenpolicy ambitionsandthecomplexnatureofurbantransformationsmeanstheachievement ofTOD“remainsaselusiveaseverforSouthEastQueensland”(Burton 2017).

2.5FeatureCaseStudy:Perth

2.5.1TheDeliveryofTODinPerth

TheprinciplesespousedinActivityCentreplanninghavebeen(tosomedegree)afeatureofPerth’splanningsincethemid-twentiethcentury.TheStephenson–Hepburn 1955strategicplanaimedtocreateaseriesof“compactself-containedcommunities thathadalltheelementsrequiredfordailylife”(Curtis 2010).The1970sCorridor planventuredanurbanformcomprisingfourcorridorsradiatingfromthecentral businessdistrictwithregionalcentresattheends,withtheaimofreducingtraffic congestioninthecentralcity(Curtis 2010).

In1988,thestategovernmentreleasedDevelopmentControlPolicy1.6,“ResidentialDevelopmentNearMetropolitanRailwayStations”,whichaimedtopromote higherdensitydevelopmentclosetotrainstations(DavisandHarford-Mills 2016).In asimilarvein,inthe1990s“Metroplan”,plannersaimedtoconcentrateemploymentgeneratingactivitiesandhigherresidentialdensitiesaroundpublictransportroutes (Curtis 2010).PlannersfurtherextendedtheseTODprinciplesinPerth’s2004“NetworkCity”plan.ThisplancomprisedanextensiveActivityCentrenetworkand castPerthasa“connectedcity”withhigherdensitiesaroundpublictransportnodes andareasofemployment(DepartmentofPlanningandWesternAustralianPlanning Commission 2015).Perth’s“Directions2031”(DepartmentofPlanningandWestern AustralianPlanningCommission 2015)retainedtheTODphilosophy,asdoesthe

2.5FeatureCaseStudy:Perth23

currentplan“PerthandPeel@3.5million”(DepartmentofPlanningandWestern AustralianPlanningCommission 2015).

DespitePerth’smostrecentActivityCentrepolicyhavingbeeninplacesince2010 (GovernmentofWesternAustralia 2010),comparativelylittleinfilldevelopment hasoccurredinthedesignatedsites,exceptforActivityCentressuchasCockburn wherestategovernmentownedmuchoftheland(Figs. 2.1 and 2.2).Reflectingthe challengesofdeliveringsuchdevelopmentinPerth’sActivityCentres,ofthecapital cityregions,onlyGreaterBrisbanehadalowerpopulationdensitythanPerth.Indeed, detachedhousesaccountedfor78%ofPerth’stotalhousingstockin2011(Maginn andFoley 2017).3

TODhasprovenachallengeinPerth.AsCurtisnotedin2012,policytranslation fromstategovernmenttolocalgovernmenthasbeen“slowandinconsistent”and, despiteconsiderableinvestmentinpublictransport,itisevidentthattherehasbeen littlesignificantland-usechange.Asaresult,Curtisidentifiedan“implementation gap”betweenplanningandon-the-grounddevelopment,andreferredtothepaceof changeas“glaciallyslow”(Curtis 2012).Thestategovernment’sfailuretoimplement manypublictransportinitiativesproposedwithinstrategicplansforPerth(from1955 tothepresent)hascompoundedthis.Thoseincludeproposalsfornewrail,lightrail, rapidbusandferrysystems(DavisandHarford-Mills 2016).

Perhapsasaresultofthesefactors,Perthhashada5-yeardeclineinpublic transportusethathasonlyrecentlybeenarrested(Acott 2019).Furthermore,“over thepast40years,thenumberofcarsinPerthhasgrownfasterthanitspopulation,and itnowhasmorecarspercapitathananyotherAustraliancapitalcity,withsome83 vehiclesper100people”(DepartmentofPlanningandWesternAustralianPlanning Commission 2015).Reflectingthis,in2011,77%ofPerthresidentsdrovetowork (DepartmentofPlanningandWesternAustralianPlanningCommission 2015).

TherelativefailureofTODinPerthisdespitethecityhasseen“oneofthemost deliberateattemptsworldwidetomovefromcardependentdevelopmentpatternsto TOD”(Curtis 2012).Moreover,stateplanningpolicyhasrequiredTODfordecades, thepublictransportnetworkhasbeenprogressivelyimproved,institutionalarrangementsarestrong(Curtis 2012),andPerthhasbeenthebeneficiaryofsuccessive mining-relatedboomperiods.

2.5.2BackgroundInfill

AlackofdevelopmentinActivityCentresitesinPerthhasenabledsubstantial greenfielddevelopment,whichinturnhasdestroyedvastswathesofremnantvegetationoftheSouthwestAustraliaglobalbiodiversityhotspot,4 exacerbatedbasic

3 TheinfillrateforPerthwasapproximately42%in2017,upfrom34%in2015(Department ofPlanningLandsandHeritage 2019);however,thisispartlyexplainedbypatchygreenfield developmentinrecentyears.

4 Between2001and2009,suburbangrowthconsumedanannualaverageof851haofhighly biodiverselandontheurbanfringe(Weller 2009).

Infill development lot

Activity Centre 10 min walkable catchment Urban areas

Fig.2.1 ThechallengesofActivityCentredevelopment:MappingofPerth’sStrategicMetropolitan ActivityCentre’srevealscomparativelylittledevelopmentbetween2010and2019

Armadale

Cannington

Fremantle

Midland

Infill development lot

Activity Centre 10 min walkable catchment

Urban areas

Fig.2.2 ThechallengesofActivityCentredevelopment:MappingofPerth’sSecondaryActivity Centre’sshowscomparativelylittledevelopmentbetween2010and2019,otherthanCockburn whichhadsubstantialreservesofgovernment-ownedland

Belmont

Leederville

Cockburn

Warwick

262Transit-OrientedDevelopment(TOD)andItsProblems

rawmaterialshortages,andcompromisedPerth’sfoodsecuritybypavingoveragriculturallyproductiveperi-urbanland(Bolleter 2015).ThechallengesofTODhave alsomeantthatalargeproportionofinfilldevelopmentisoccurringthroughthe“do ityourself”subdivisionofbackyards.Plannersrefertothisformofinfilldevelopmentas“background”infill—namely,smallprojectsyieldingfewerthanfivegroup dwellings(DepartmentofPlanningLandsandHeritage 2019).Backgroundinfill ischaracterizedbysemi-detached,surveystrata,groupdwellings(generallysingle storey)organizedaroundacommunaldrivewayspaceleadingtoprivategarages adjacenttothedwellings(Fig. 2.3).

Perth’sUrbanGrowthMonitorconfirmstheprevalenceofbackgroundinfilldevelopment.In2017,infillprojectswheredevelopmentresultedinbetweenonetofive newdwellingsperlot(i.e.backgroundinfill)accountedfor56%ofalltheinfill dwellingsbuiltinthatyear(DepartmentofPlanningLandsandHeritage 2019).The datafor2017is,however,animprovementwithintheperiod2012–2017,wherebackgroundinfillconstituted65%ofallinfilldevelopment.Nonetheless,despitedecades ofTODplanninginPerth,developersaredeliveringmoreinfillinanadhoc,“background”mannerthaninActivityCentres.Thissuggeststhereisvalueinreflectingon thetypeofinfilldevelopmentthatdevelopersaredelivering(i.e.backgroundinfill), ratherthanwhatplannersareaspiringto,butmaynoteventuate.

Fig.2.3 Backgroundinfill:Backgroundinfillischaracterizedbyuptofivesemi-detacheddwellings aroundacommunaldrivewayspaceleadingtoprivategarages. Source Nearmap

2.5.3ImpactsofBackgroundInfillinPerth

Inthissection,weevaluatetheimpactsofbackgroundinfillthroughageospatial analysis.Wehaveemployedthisapproachtofindcorrelationsbetweensitesofbackgroundinfillandaccesstonature,retaildestinationsandpublictransport—allof whicharecrucialtourbanlivability(TheEconomistIntelligenceUnitLimited 2012).

2.5.4AccesstoNature

“Contactwithnature”isregardedasauniversalrequirementof“urbanlandscapes” (ArvolaandPennanen 2014),asentimentalsostronglysharedbyPerth’sresidents (CurtinUniversityandHamesSharley 2013).Notsurprisingly,backgroundinfill developmentinPerthtendstoprovidemuchlessgardenareaperpersonthananunsubdividedsuburbanform.5 Compoundingthissituation,muchoftheopenspacethat isprovidedinbackgroundinfillisresidualspace,generatedbythestategovernment controlledResidentialDesignCodes(R-codes),whichdictateaminimum1.5m setbackbetweenlotlinesandbuildingedges(StateofWesternAustralia 2010).When “builtout”,thistendstoresultinnarrowcorridorsofprivateopenspace(Fig. 2.4). Aproclivityforprivatecarparkingadjoiningprivatedwellingsalsomeansthat,in manycases,40%ofthelotarearelatestocarparkingandmovement.

Planninghasonlypartlycompensatedforthislossinthepublicrealm.Most backgroundinfillisnotlocatednearbyregionalopenspace,whichprovidesthemost authenticexperienceofnatureinthecity(Fig. 2.5).Whilemiddle-ringlocalgovernmentareasprovideasubstantial40m2 ofpublicopenspaceperperson(Fig. 2.6),it tendstobeofpoorqualityandisoftennotwellutilized(Bolleter 2015)—evidence ofwhichreaderscanfindindatameasuringphysicalinactivitylevelsinresidents (PHIDUTorrensUniversityAustralia)(Fig. 2.7).Thisis,atleastpartly,because acrossPerth’sinnerandmiddle-ringsuburbs,wheremostbackgroundinfillisoccurring,parksaretypicallyturfexpansessometimeshavingonlyscatteredmaturetrees.6

Despitethesignificantamountofbackgroundinfilldevelopmentthathasoccurred todate,therehasbeennosystematicupgradeofthepublicdomaintoserviceresidents livingathigherdensities.Thefailureoflocalgovernmentstoupgradeopenspacesis worryingbecauseresearchtellsusthathigher-densityresidentshavedifferentneeds frompublicspacethantheirlower-densitycounterparts(Symeetal. 2001).

5 The“classic”quarteracreblockprovidedapproximately1,000m2 perhousehold(Seddon 1994).

6 Reflectingthis,amongtheparksinPerth’sinnerandmiddlesuburbs,22%havenotrees,only 10%havesignificantwildlifefunctionandonly1%havewetlands(despitethefactthatPerthwas historicallyalandscapeofwetlands).Furthermore,74%ofparkshaveapervasiveunderlayof reticulatedturfpoorlysuitedtoPerth’sdryingclimate,54%havenowalkingpaths,only16%have picnictablesand9%havebarbecuefacilities(CentrefortheBuiltEnvironmentandHealth 2013).

Fig.2.4 Backgroundinfill:Backgroundinfilloftenresultsinnarrowcorridorsofunusableprivate openspace. Source JulianBolleter

Regional open space

10 minute walkable catchment

Infill development since 2010

Fig.2.5 Backgroundinfillandregionalopenspace:Mostbackgroundinfillisnotlocatednear regionalopenspace,whichprovidesthemostauthenticexperienceofnatureinthecity

Public open space

5-minute walkable catchment

Infill development since 2010

Fig.2.6 Backgroundinfillandpublicopenspace:Whilemiddle-ringlocalgovernmentareasprovideasubstantial40m2 ofpublicopenspaceperperson,ittendstobeofpoorqualityandisoften notwellutilized

Finally,readerscanassessaresident’saccesstonaturebythepresence(orotherwise)ofasubstantialurbanforest.Theimportanceoftheurbanforesttolivability inPerthisevidencedbythefactthat77%ofrespondentstothe“TheHousing We’dChoose”studyconsideredthatthe“presenceoftrees”isanimportantdwelling attribute(CurtinUniversityandHamesSharley 2013).

DespitetheimportanceoftreestosupportinglivabilityinPerth,onekeyeffectof backgroundinfill—incombinationwiththeincreasingsizeofnewhouses,alackof treeprotectionregulationandsomeresidents’“arbor-phobia”—hasbeenadecline inurbanforestcoverinPerth’sinnerandmiddle-ringsuburbs(Fig. 2.8).Examples oftheeffectsofbackgroundinfilldevelopmentonurbanforestcovercanbefound intheinnerandmiddle-ringlocalgovernmentareasofSouthPerth,Bayswater, StirlingandCanning(allofwhichhavehighinfilldevelopmenttargets),withthe percentageoftotalvegetationclearedbetween2001and2004amountingto13%, 12%,11%and11%,respectively(McManus 2010).Onereasonthatbackground infilldevelopmenthasresultedintheremovalofurbanforestcoveristhattreesare

1-25% of population inactive

35-38% of population inactive

Infill development since 2010

Fig.2.7 Backgroundinfillandlevelsofphysicalinactivity:Physicalinactivityreacheselevated levelsinmanyareaswhichhaveexperiencedsignificantbackgroundinfill.Generally,mediocre POSreservesandalackofpublictransportandprivateopenspaceatleastpartlyexplainthis

often“treatedastrimmingstothedesignedurbanenvironmentandareaffordedlittle ornoprotectionagainsttheexigencyofmeetingdevelopmentaspirations”(Brunner andCozens 2013)(Figs. 2.9 and 2.10).

Theclearingofthissubstantialurbanforesthasseveralpotentialramifications fortheprovisionofecosystemservicesand,inturn,urbanlivability.Inshort,the urbanforestprovideskeyenvironmentalbenefits,includingreducingairpollution, sequesteringgreenhousegasses(BrunnerandCozens 2013),filteringandcleaning stormwater,minimizingandmitigatingurbanheatislands(increasinglyimportantin theageofclimatechange),amelioratingthelocalclimateandsupportingbiodiversity (DepartmentofPlanningandWesternAustralianPlanningCommission 2015).

2.5.5AccesstoRetailDestinations

Perth’sresidentsregard“easyaccess”toretaildestinationssuchaslocalshops,as acrucialdwellingattribute.Indeed,73%ofrespondentsto“TheHousingWe’d Choose”surveythoughtthiswasanimportantdwellingattribute(CurtinUniversity andHamesSharley 2013).So,towhatdegreeisbackgroundinfilldeliveringretail assetsinPerth?RetaildestinationsincludeDistrictCentres,NeighbourhoodCentres

Urban forest cover 5%

Urban forest cover 40%

Infill development since 2010

Fig.2.8 Backgroundinfillandurbanforests:Onekeyeffectofbackgroundinfillhasbeenadecline inurbanforestcoverinPerth’sinnerandmiddle-ringsuburbs

Fig.2.9 Urbanforestpriortobackgroundinfill:Atypicalsuburbanareaandmatureurbanforest priortobackgroundinfilloccurring

Fig.2.10 Urbanforestafterbackgroundinfill:Atypicalsuburbanareapostbackgroundinfill occurring.Thelossofurbanforestcoverispartlybecausetreesareaffordedlittleornoprotection againstmeetingdevelopmentaspirations

andLocalCentres,asdefinedinPerth’sActivityCentrepolicy.7 Whenweplotted thesecentretypesagainstconcentrationsofbackgroundinfill,wefoundasubstantialproportionofresidentialareasthataredevoidofsuchcentres(Fig. 2.11).We attributethistothedispersednatureofbackgroundinfill,whichdoesnotresultin thedenselypopulatedurbanprecinctsrequiredtosupportsignificantcommercial assets.AsDebraGoostrey,Ex-ChiefExecutiveoftheWesternAustralianUrban DevelopmentIndustryAssociationexplains:

Whenyougetto(infilldevelopment)precincts,youcansuddenlyjustifyasmallbaranda restaurant,youhavetohaveenoughpeopleinandaroundthatarea…densitybringswithit thecoffeeshopeffect,thatgreatvibrancythatcomesthrough.[But]whenyou’vegotsmall littlebitsofdensity,youdon’tgetthecoffeeshopeffect…(InMoodieandTrigger 2015).

Inquantitativeterms,whiletheActivityCentrepolicydefines6,250residents perkm2 asadesirabledensitytosupportNeighbourhoodCentres(basedonR25

7 ThispolicydefinesDistrictCentresas“servicingthedailyandweeklyneedsofresidents”and theirwalkablecatchmentisconsideredtobe400m.Typicalretailtypesincludedepartmentstores, supermarketsandsomespecialtyshops.ThesearesupplementedbysmallerscaleNeighbourhood Centresthatareintendedtoincludeasmallsupermarket,personalservices(suchasahairdresser) andconvenienceshops.Plannerstypicallyregardtheirwalkablecatchmentas200m.Finally,Local Centresaredefinedasanyshopwithafloorspaceoflessthan1,500m2 ,andusuallyconsistofa “cornerdeli”andanewsagent(StateofWesternAustralia 2005).

Fig.2.11 BackgroundinfillandActivityCentres:Mostbackgroundinfillthatisoccurringisnot withinawalkablecatchmentofDistrictCentres,NeighbourhoodCentresorLocalCentres grossdensity8 )evenwithsubstantialbackgroundinfillmanyPerthlocalgovernment areas(suchastheCityofStirling)onlyachieveagrossresidentialdensityof2,100 peopleperkm2 (AustralianBureauofStatistics 2012).Thus,whilegovernments anddevelopersoftenpromoteurbandensificationwithimagesofcafécultureand theconvenienceoflocalshops,itisnotclearthattheplanningrulesthatperpetuate backgroundinfillaredeliveringthislifestyle.

2.5.6AccessibilitytoPublicTransport

BoththeEconomistIntelligenceUnitandtheWesternAustralianstategovernment defineavitalcharacteristicofurbanlivabilityasbeingaccessibilitytopublictransport (WesternAustralianDepartmentofPlanning 2010;TheEconomistIntelligenceUnit Limited 2012).Despitethis,Perthremainsastubbornlycar-centriccity.So,towhat degreeareareasofbackgroundinfillwellservicedbypublictransportinPerth?

Perth’sheavyrailsystem,thebackboneofPerth’spublictransportsystem,consistsoffivemajorraillinesradiatingfromthecitycentre.Muchofthebackground infilldevelopmentthatisoccurringinmiddle-ringsuburbsisinthesubstantialareas betweentheradiatingraillines.MappingofPerth’sexistingtrainstationsincombi-

8 R25equatesto25dwellingsperha.

Rail stations and walkable catchment

Infill development since 2010

Fig.2.12 Backgroundinfillandtrainstations:MappingofPerth’sexistingtrainstationsincombinationwithbackgroundinfilldevelopmentrevealsthatlittleoftheinfilliswithinashortwalkof trainstations

nationwithbackgroundinfilldevelopmentthathasoccurredtodaterevealsthatlittle ofthebackgroundinfilliswithinashortwalkoftrainstations—inthismapshown asan800mor10-minutewalk(Fig. 2.12).

Duetothissituation,publictransportusersinthesebackgroundinfillareasrely onPerth’sbussystemthateitherfeedintotherailsystemoraccessthecitycentre directly.Whilesignificantlymoreoftheareasofbackgroundinfillareservicedby busroutesthantrains,thebussystemtendsto“emphasizecoverage”(i.e.short walkingdistances)atthecostofthe“frequencyandlegibilityoftheservice”(Mees andDodson 2011)(Fig. 2.13).Mappingoftheproportionofpeoplewhodriveor carpooltoworkrevealsahighvehiculardependencyinsuburbswithalargeamount ofbackgroundinfill,particularlyinthenorthernmostsectionofthemiddle-ring suburbs(Fig. 2.14).

2.6Conclusion

Initsmostboldpromise,PeterCalthorpebelievedTODwouldhelpto“redefinethe AmericanDream”(Carlton 2009).However,shortoftheimpositionof“draconian planningregimes”(Bergeretal. 2017),itisunlikelythatmosturbanTODdevel-

Fig.2.13 Backgroundinfillandbusstops:Busroutesservicesignificantlymoretheareasof backgroundinfillthantrains;however,thebussystemtendstoemphasizecoverageatthecostof thefrequencyandlegibilityoftheservice

opmentwillbeachieved.Asthischapterhasexplored,thereexistsa“divergence betweenthecompactcityimaginedinmetropolitanplansandwhatisoccurringon thegroundinAustraliancities”(Grayetal. 2010).DespitetheapplicationofTOD policyinPerth,Melbourne,SydneyandSouthEastQueenslandovermanyyears, implementationhasprovenachallenge(KellyandDonegan 2015;Goodmanand Moloney 2004;Burton 2017;Goodman 2017;Randolphetal. 2017).Thisisnota uniquelyAustralianissueeither.SuchchallengestoTODarealsobeingexperienced inNorthAmericaintheirfirstgenerationof“transittowns”(Dittmaretal. 2004). WhileCalthorpesoughtto“redefinetheAmericanDream”,webelievemostsuburbandwellersintheAustraliancitiesareyettofallunderthespellofthisdream. Thisisimportantbecauseforurbaninfilltobecomeaviablemodel,werequirean enticingnewdreamthatcancompeteagainsttheenduringpopularityofsuburban living.

WithAustralia’spopulationpredictedtotripleby2100(AustralianBureauof Statistics 2013),theneedtodeliverhighperforminginfilldevelopmentisunlikely toease.Whilethispopulationgrowthrepresentsanopportunityforcreativity,if policymakersandplannershandleitpoorly,itcouldbecalamitous.AsBrendan Gleesonremindsus—ourcitiesmustbecometheurban“lifeboats”thatenableusto “sailthroughthecomingstormsofresourceshortagesandclimatechange”(Gleeson 2010).Inshort,deliveringinfilldevelopmentinamannerthatimprovesurban

High frequency bus stops Infill development since 2010

<35% of people drive to work

>70% of people drive to work

Infill development since 2010

Fig.2.14 Backgroundinfillandcardependency:Mappingoftheproportionofpeoplewhodrive toworkrevealsahighvehiculardependencyinsuburbswithalargeamountofbackgroundinfill, particularlyinthenorthernmostsectionofthemiddle-ringsuburbs

livabilitywillbeoneofthechallengesthatdefinestheviabilityofAustraliancities inthiscentury.Inthefollowingchapter,wediscussthepotentialofGODtoaddress thisemergingsituation.

References

AcottK(2019)Ispublictransportofftherails?TheWestAustralian. https://thewest.com.au/news/ wa/is-public-transport-off-the-rails-ng-b881083423z.Accessed29Jan2019

ArvolaA,PennanenK(2014)Understandingresidents’attitudestowardsinfilldevelopmentat Finnishurbansuburbs.PaperpresentedattheworldSB14Barcelona,Barcelona,30September AustralianBureauofStatistics(2012)3218.0—regionalpopulationgrowth,Australia,2011–12. AustralianBureauofStatistics. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3218.0/.Accessed 26June2013

AustralianBureauofStatistics(2013)Populationprojections,Australia,2012to2101.AustralianBureauofStatistics. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/3222.0main+ features52012%20(base)%20to%202101.Accessed14Jan2014

AustralianBureauofStatistics(2017)Apartmentliving.AustralianBureauofStatistics. https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/2071.0~2016~Main% 20Features~Apartment%20Living~20.Accessed12June2019

BergerA,KotkinJ,GuzmanC(2017)Introduction.In:BergerA,KotkinJ,GuzmanC(eds)Infinite suburbia.MIT,Boston,pp10–23

BolleterJ(2015)Scavengingthesuburbs:auditingPerthfor1millioninfilldwellings.University ofWesternAustraliaPublishing,Perth

BolleterJ,WellerR(2013)MadeinAustralia:thefutureofAustraliancities.UniversityofWestern AustraliaPublishing,Perth

BruegmannR(2017)Theanti-suburbancrusade.In:BergerA,KotkinJ,GuzmanC(eds)Infinite suburbia.MIT,Boston,pp26–37

BrunnerJ,CozensP(2013)‘Wherehaveallthetreesgone?’Urbanconsolidationandthedemise ofurbanvegetation:acasestudyfromWesternAustralia.PlanPractRes28(2):231–255

BurtonP(2017)SouthEastQueensland:changeandcontinuityinplanning.In:HamnettS,Freestone R(eds)PlanningmetropolitanAustralia.Routledge,London,pp156–177

CarltonI(2009)Historiesoftransit-orienteddevelopment:perspectivesonthedevelopmentofthe TODconcept.InstituteofUrban&RegionalDevelopment,Berkeley CentrefortheBuiltEnvironmentandHealth(2013)PublicOpenSpace(POS)GeographicInformationSystem(GIS)layer.UniversityofWesternAustralia. http://researchdata.ands.org.au/publicopen-space-pos-geographic-information-system-gis-layer.Accessed11June2013

CommunityRepresentative(2018)Interview

CongressofNewUrbanism(2016)ThecharteroftheNewUrbanism.CongressofNewUrbanism. https://www.cnu.org/who-we-are/charter-new-urbanism.Accessed15Aug2016

CurtinUniversity,HamesSharley(2013)Thehousingwe’dchoose:astudyforPerthandPeel. DepartmentofHousing,DepartmentofPlanning,Perth CurtisC(2010)TheNetworkCitymetropolitanplanningstrategy:aparadigmshiftforsustainable transport?In:AlexanderI,GreiveS,HedgcockD(eds)PlanningperspectivesfromWestern Australia:areaderintheoryandpractice.FremantlePress,Perth,pp258–273 CurtisC(2012)Transitioningtotransit-orienteddevelopment:thecaseofPerth,WesternAustralia. UrbanPolicyRes30(3):275–292

DavisG,Harford-MillsG(2016)Examining60yearsofstrategicplanninginmetropolitanPerth andPeel.CommitteeforPerth,Perth DepartmentofInfrastructureandPlanning(2009)SouthEastQueenslandregionalplan2009–2031. DepartmentofInfrastructureandPlanning,Brisbane DepartmentofInfrastructureLGaP(2017)ShapingSEQ:SouthEastQueenslandregionalplan 2017.QueenslandGovernment,Brisbane DepartmentofPlanning,WesternAustralianPlanningCommission(2015)DraftPerthandPeel @3.5million.WesternAustralianPlanningCommission,Perth DepartmentofPlanningLandsandHeritage(2019)Urbangrowthmonitor:Perthmetropolitan, PeelandGreaterBunburyregions.WesternAustralianPlanningCommission,Perth DepartmentofPlanningTaI(2017)The30-yearplanforgreaterAdelaide:2017update.Department ofPlanning,TransportandInfrastructure,Adelaide DevelopmentInstituteRepresentative(2018)Interview

DittmarH,BelzerD,AutlerG(2004)Anintroductiontotransit-orienteddevelopment.In:Dittmar H,OhlandG(eds)NewTransitTown:bestpracticesintransit-orienteddevelopment.IslandPress, Washington DodsonJ(2010)Inthewrongplaceatthewrongtime?Assessingsomeplanning,transportand housingmarketlimitstourbanconsolidationpolicies.UrbanPolicyRes28(4):487–504

DoveyK,WoodcockI(2014)IntensifyingMelbourne:transit-orientedurbandesignforresilient urbanfutures.MelbourneSchoolofDesign,TheUniversityofMelbourne,Melbourne ElliotR(2017)Australia’smisplacedwarontheAustraliandream.In:BergerA,KotkinJ(eds) Infinitesuburbia.MIT,Boston,pp104–113

FalconerR,BabbC,OlaruD(2016)Citiesassystems:nodeandplaceconflictacrossarailtransit network.In:BiermannS,OlaruD,PaulV(eds)Planningboomtownandbeyond.UWAPublishing,Perth,pp460–489

GillenM(2006)ThechallengeofattainingasustainableurbanmorphologyforSouthEastQueensland.PlanPractRes21(3):291–308

GleesonB(2010)Lifeboatcities.UNSWPress,Sydney

382Transit-OrientedDevelopment(TOD)andItsProblems

GleesonB,DodsonJ,SpillerM(2010)MetropolitangovernancefortheAustraliancity:thecase forreform.IssuesPap12(1):1–26

GoodmanR(2017)Melbourne:growingpainsfortheliveablecity.In:HamnettS,FreestoneR (eds)PlanningmetropolitanAustralia.Routledge,pp59–83

GoodmanR,MoloneyS(2004)ActivitycentreplanninginMelbournerevisited.AustPlan41(2) GovernmentofWesternAustralia(2010)Stateplanningpolicy4.2:activitycentresforPerthand Peel.GovernmentofWesternAustralia,Perth

GrayR,GleesonB,BurkeM(2010)Urbanconsolidation,householdgreenhouseemissionsandthe roleofplanning.UrbanPolicyRes28(3):335–346

HaganS(2017)Metabolicsuburbsorthevirtueoflowdensities.In:BergerA,KotkinJ,Guzman C(eds)Infinitesuburbia.MIT,Boston,pp468–477

HollingC,HaslamMcKenzieF(2010)Integratedtransit-oriented-development:isitappropriate forPerth?In:AlexanderI,GreiveS,HedgcockD(eds)PlanningperspectivesfromWestern Australia:areaderintheoryandpractice.FremantlePress,Perth,pp274–288

HurleyJ,TaylorE,DodsonJ(2017)Whyhasurbanconsolidationbeensodifficult.In:SipeN, VellaK(eds)TheRoutledgehandbookofAustralianurbanandregionalplanning,NewYork,pp 123–135

InfrastructureAustralia(2018)Futurecities:planningforourgrowingpopulation

KellyJ-F,DoneganP(2015)Citylimits:whyAustraliancitiesarebrokenandhowwecanfixthem. MelbourneUniversityPress,Melbourne LocalGovernmentPlanner(2018)Interview

MaginnP,FoleyN(2017)Perth:from‘LargeProvincialCity’to‘GlobalizingCity’.In:Hamnett S,FreestoneR(eds)PlanningmetropolitanAustralia.Routledge,London,pp124–147

McManusP(2010)PlanningwithandfortreesinPerth:yesterday,todayandtomorrow.In:AlexanderI,GreiveS,HedgcockD(eds)PlanningperspectivesfromWesternAustralia:areaderintheory andpractice.FremantlePress,Perth,pp340–353

MeesP,DodsonJ(2011)PublictransportnetworkplanninginAustralia:assessingcurrentpractice inAustralia’sfivelargestcities.GriffithUniversityUrbanResearchProgram,no34,pp1–28 MoodieC,TriggerR(2015)Perthinfillbacklash:suburbsfightinghigh-densitydevelopment.ABCNews. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-08/perth-infill-backlash-suburbsfighting-high-density-development/6521460?WT.ac=localnews_perth.Accessed09June2015 MurphyP(2012)Themetropolis.In:MaginnP,ThompsonS(eds)PlanningAustralia:anoverview ofurbanandregionalplanning.CambridgeUniversityPress,Melbourne,pp155–179 NewmanP(2018)Whytracklesstramsarereadytoreplacelightrail.Theconversation. https:// theconversation.com/why-trackless-trams-are-ready-to-replace-light-rail-103690.Accessed30 Dec2018

OECD(2012)Compactcitypolicies:acomparativeassessment.OECDGreenGrowthStudies Parliamentarian(2018)Interview

PHIDUTorrensUniversityAustraliaSocialHealthAtlases.TorrensUniversityAustralia. http:// phidu.torrens.edu.au/social-health-atlases#estCBaZ1koZPR8k3.97.Accessed14Aug2016 RandolphB,FreestoneR,BunkerR(2017)Sydney:growth,globalizationandgovernance.In: HamnettS,FreestoneR(eds)PlanningmetropolitanAustralia.Routledge,London,pp84–108 RiceJ(2016)Theregoestheneighbourhood?Orsavingtheworld?Communityviewsabouttransit orienteddevelopment.In:CurtisC,RenneJL,BertoliniL(eds)Transitorienteddevelopment: makingithappen.Routledge,NewYork,pp191–204

RowleyS,PhibbsP(2012)Deliveringdiverseandaffordablehousingoninfilldevelopmentsites, vol193.AustralianHousingandUrbanResearchInstitute,Melbourne SarkissianW(2013)WendySarkissianonNIMBYism,communityresistanceandhousingdensity. TheFifthEstate. http://www.thefifthestate.com.au/spinifex/nimbyism-community-resistanceand-housing-density/45397.Accessed17Dec2015

SeddonG(1994)TheAustralianbackyard.In:CravenI(ed)Australianpopularculture.Cambridge UniversityPress,Cambridge,pp22–35

SouthEastQueenslandRegionalOrganisationofCouncils(2005)SouthEastQueenslandregional plan2005–2026.OfficeofUrbanManagement,QueenslandDepartmentofLocalGovernment, Brisbane

StateofWesternAustralia(2005)Stateplanningpolicy4.2:activitycentresforPerthandPeel. StateofWesternAustralia,Perth

StateofWesternAustralia(2010)Stateplanningpolicy3.1:residentialdesigncodes.Stateof WesternAustralia,Perth

SymeG,FentonM,CoakesS(2001)Lotsize,gardensatisfactionandlocalparkandwetland visitation.LandscUrbanPlan56:161–170

TheEconomistIntelligenceUnitLimited(2012)Bestcitiesrankingandreport:aspecialreport fromtheEconomistIntelligenceUnit.TheEconomist,London

TroyP(2004)Savingourcitieswithsuburbs.In:SchultzJ(ed)Griffithreview:dreamsofland. GriffithUniversity,Brisbane

VictoriaStateGovernment(2017)PlanMelbourne2017–2050.VictoriaStateGovernment,Melbourne

WellerR(2009)Boomtown2050.UniversityofWesternAustraliaPress,Perth

WesternAustralianDepartmentofPlanning(2010)Directions2031andbeyond:metropolitan planningbeyondthehorizon.DepartmentofPlanning,Perth

Chapter3

WhyGOD?TheBenefits

ofGreenspace-OrientedDevelopment

Abstract Inthischapter,wesetoutastrategyforurbandensification,whichwe nameGreenspace-OrientedDevelopment(GOD).WhileTransit-OrientedDevelopment(TOD)co-locatesurbandensificationwithpublictransporthubs,GODcolocatesurbandensificationwithsignificant,upgradedpublicgreenspaces(suchas parks)thatarerelativelywellservedbypublictransport.Theupgradedparks,and theirconnectingstreetscapes,operateasamultifunctional,communal“backyard” forresidentslivinginasurroundinghigher-densityurbanprecinct.ThroughGOD, weproposetoweavetogetherthepositiveaspectsofsuburbia(i.e.accesstoopen spaceandnature)withthoseofgoodqualitymedium-densityurbaninfill(i.e.access topublictransport,facilitiesandgoodurbandesign).Inthischapter,wedescribe GOD,itskeyprinciples,benefitsandthesettingstowhichitismostsuited.

Keywords Ecosystemservices · Benefitsofurbangreenspaces · Greenspace-OrientedDevelopment · Transit-OrientedDevelopment · Urban biodiversity · Urbanconsolidation · Urbandesign · Urbangreenspace · Urban infill · Urbanparks · Publicopenspace

3.1AnOverviewofGOD

Assetoutinthepreviouschapter,theprinciplesofTODarewellestablished,yet itconfrontsmanychallengestoimplementation.Webelievethatweneedacomplementarystrategyforachievinginfilldevelopment,andthatGreenspace-Oriented Development(GOD)isthisviablestrategy.ThisisbecauseGODiseminentlyimplementablebutalsooffersahostofenvironmentalandhumanhealthandwell-being benefits.

TheGODapproachactsonthreemaincomponentsofthesuburbanlandscape: (1)targetparks,(2)surroundingurbanprecinctsand(3)connectingstreetscapes, andinsimpletermscorrelatesurbandensificationwithsignificant,upgradedpublic parks.Weproposethattheseparksoperateasamultifunctional,communal“backyard”forresidentslivinginanadjacenthigher-densityurbanprecinct.Theparks shouldbeofasignificantsize,atleastgreaterthan1ha,andshouldofferreasonable connectivitytopublictransport,forexample,a5-minutecycleora15–20-minute

©TheAuthor(s),underexclusivelicensetoSpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG2020 J.BolleterandC.E.Ramalho, Greenspace-OrientedDevelopment, SpringerBriefsinGeography, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29601-8_3

423WhyGOD?TheBenefitsofGreenspace-OrientedDevelopment walk(approximately1,600m)totrainstationsorrapidbustransit.Upgradedconnectingstreetscapes(e.g.betweentheparkandnearbytransporthubs,butalsoshops, facilities,communitycentresandschools)provideconnectivityanddeliverfurther communalgreenareas,improvevisualqualityandhelpactivatingtheneighbourhood. Thehigher-densityurbanprecinctconsistsofmedium-riseapartments(adjacentto thepark)throughtolow-riseapartmentsandterracehousedwellingslocatedwithin a400mradiusofthepark(Fig. 3.1).

WebelievethataGODapproachcanpromoteurbandensificationinsuburban settings,fromolderinner-ringsuburbsthroughtomiddle-ring(greyfield)andouter ring(greenfield)suburbs.Inthisandthenextchapter,wefocusonthepotentialof GODforAustralia’sgreyfield,middle-ringsuburbs.Theseweredevelopedbetween the1950sand1970s(Newtonetal. 2011)andtypicallycompriseunderutilizedand outdatedpropertyassets,witharesidentialbuildingstockthatisupforreplacement (Newton 2010).Becauseoftheirrelativeproximitytocitycentres,greyfieldsuburbs havehighredevelopmentanddensificationpotential,andconsequentlyhighinfill targets.

WhileAustralia’sgreyfieldsuburbscontainareasonablenumberofparks,many oftheseareunder-designed,offerminimalamenityandaretypicallyunderutilized (Figs. 3.2 and 3.3).Indeed,localgovernmentsoftenswathethisubiquitouscomponentofthegreyfieldlandscapewithirrigatedlawnandascatteringoftrees.Moreover, thedesignofgreyfieldparkscatersmainlyfororganizedactiveteamsports,over

Fig.3.1 Greenspace-OrientedDevelopment:GODco-locatesurbandensificationwithupgraded publicgreenspacesthatarerelativelywellservedbypublictransport

0500-0600 (People=1, dogs=0)

0800-0900 (People=3, dogs=0)

1100-1200 (People=1, dogs=0)

1400-1500 (People=2, dogs=0)

1700-1800 (People=4, dogs=3)

Fig.3.2 Time-lapsephotographyofagreyfieldparkinPerth:Thedesignofgreyfieldparkscaters fororganizedactiveteamsports,overmanyothercommunityandecosystemservices. Source Julian Bolleter

0500-0600 (People=0, dogs=0)

0800-0900 (People=0, dogs=0)

1100-1200 (People=0, dogs=0)

1400-1500 (People=0, dogs=0)

1700-1800 (People=0, dogs=0)

Fig.3.3 Time-lapsephotographyofagreyfieldparkinPerth:Manygreyfieldparksareunderdesigned,offerminimalamenity,andaretypicallyunderutilized.Time-lapsephotographyofa greyfieldparkinPerthrevealsasparsityofuse. Source JulianBolleter

manyothercommunityandecosystemservices(e.g.passiverecreationandwildlife habitat).Indeed,themainfacilitiesprovidedbylocalgovernmentsincludethose designedtoenableteamsports,suchasclubrooms,goalposts,basketballhoopsand cricketpitches(ByrneandSipe 2010,p.6).

Thefocusonactiverecreationingreyfieldparksistheresultofthe“recreation movement”(ByrneandSipe 2010,p.6),whichwasprevalentinthemid-twentieth centurywhenAustralia’sgreyfieldsexpandedsignificantly.Therecreationmovement proposedthat“whatwereneededmostwereopportunitiesforcitizenstoexercise, tostrengthenanddisciplinebodies,totemperimmoralimpulsesandtogivepeople aplacetoventfrustrationsandescapefromurbanlife”(ByrneandSipe 2010,p.6). Thismovementsawashiftfromhighlywroughtlandscapedparksthatweredominant inthenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturies,tohighlysimplifiedparkscatering foractiverecreation(ByrneandSipe 2010,p.6).Atthattime,mostAustralian capitalcitiesstillretainedlargetractsofremnantvegetationsurroundingthemand, therefore,theseopen,sports-orientedgreenspacesofthe“recreationmovement” offereda“clean”greenslateinthethen“urban–wildland”interface.Nonetheless, ascitiesexpanded,greyfieldsuburbsgotfurtherandfurtherawayfromthenatural areasonthecity’speriphery,andresidentsincreasinglyexperiencedalackofaccess tonatureandgoodquality,multifunctionalgreenspaces.

3.2WhyFocusDensificationAroundUpgradedParks?

Wehavebasedtheassociationbetweenurbandensificationandtheprovisionofgood qualitygreenspacesinGODonthreekeyprinciples.First,greenspacescanprovide arangeofhumanhealthandwell-being,ecologicalandeconomicbenefits,and “compensate”residentslivinginhigher-densitysettingsforarelativelackofprivate greenspace(HaalandandvandenBosch 2015;Chiesura 2004)(Fig. 3.4).Second, well-designed,higher-densityurbanprecinctssurroundingparkscanofferimportant benefitstotheutilityoftheparksthemselves.Thisincludesincreasedlocalratesand taxesthatlocalgovernmentscandirecttowardsparkupgradesandmaintenance,and morepeopletoactivatetheparkandincreaseitssafety(Udelletal. 2014).Finally, bybeingabletopromotethesocio-economicrejuvenationofthenearbyurbanareas (e.g.RyuandKwon 2016;LaFarge 2014),namelybyincreasingtheirpropertyvalues (PanduroandVeie 2013;BranderandKoetse 2011;Crompton 2005),greenspaces canfosterurbanredevelopmentanddensification(Mell 2009;Newtonetal. 2011). Wediscussthisprocessindetailinthenextchapter.

Severalcomplexitiesandnuancesare,however,presentinthispremise.First, thebenefitsprovidedbygreenspacesdependontheirattributesand,therefore,how welltheycaterfordifferentfunctions,usersandtheirneeds(Giles-Cortietal. 2012; Francisetal. 2012;Sugiyamaetal. 2015).AtypicalAustraliangreyfieldpark,with

Capital for park maintenance

Community involvement in park maintenance

Activation of park

Grey water for irrigation

Nutrients from communal composting

Water purification and infiltration Benefi ts of densified urban form surrounding parks • Passive surveillance of park

Improved physical health

Improved mental health

Increased social cohesion

Biodiversity conservation

Carbon sequestration

3.2WhyFocusDensificationAroundUpgradedParks?47

itsopennessandpaucityofsocialandecologicalfeatures,islikelytoprovidea limitedrangeofbenefitstoitssurroundingneighbourhood,mostofwhichrelate toformalorinformalpop-upsportsevents.Second,notalltypesofgreenspaces positivelyaffectpropertyvalues.Whileparksandlakesareassociatedwithlarge pricepremiums(PanduroandVeie 2013),especiallyinhigh-densitysettings(Brander andKoetse 2011),sportsfieldsmaynothaveasignificanteffect(PanduroandVeie 2013;Panditetal. 2014).Third,andfinally,theupgradeofpublicgreenspaces(and themakingofsuburbiamorelivableandattractive)canhavetheparadoxicalresult ofleadingtoecologicalorenvironmentalgentrification(Dooling 2009;Checker 2011).Thiscanreducehousingopportunitiesforlow-incomeresidentsandaffectthe commercial/retailinfrastructurethatsupportsthem(Wolchetal. 2014;Haaseetal. 2017).Evensmallorecologicallyorientedurbanrenewalprojectshaveunintendedly displacedlow-incomeresidents(seeWolchetal. 2014;Haaseetal. 2017).Awareness ofthesecomplexitiesdoesnotdiminishthevalueofourproposedGODbutinstead providesguidancetohowlocalgovernments,amongstothers,shouldimplementit (Chap. 4).

3.3WhatAretheBenefitsofGreenSpacestoResidents inHigher-DensitySettings?

Increaseddensitythroughinfilldevelopmentoftenmeansthelossofgreenspaces andcanopycover,especiallyinprivateresidentialareas,vacantlandandareasof undevelopedremnantvegetation(Linetal. 2015;Hall 2010;BrunnerandCozens 2013;Pauleitetal. 2005).Increaseddensityalsomeanscateringforalargerandmore diversepopulation.Forthisreason,enhancingtheprovisionofgreenspacebenefitsto residentsinhigher-densitysettingsrequirescarefulattentiontogreenspacequantity, aswellasquality,designandaccessibility(HaalandandvandenBosch 2015;Byrne andSipe 2010;Byrneetal. 2010).

Inthefollowingparagraphs,weexplorethekeybenefitsofgreenspacesinthe contextofhigherdensity—forpeople,biodiversityandthelocalenvironment.We focusonparks,aswehaveorientedGODtowardsdensificationaroundthem.When appropriate,wealsohighlighttheroleofstreettrees,streetscapeplantingsandother smallgreenspaces(e.g.greenroofsandfacades),asthesecanbeusedintheupgrade ofconnectingstreetscapes,andinthedesignofthehigher-densityurbanprecincts themselves(Figs. 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 and 3.9).

3.3.1HumanHealthandWell-Being

Contactwithnatureingreenspaceshasacrucialroleinpeople’squalityoflife,influencinghealthandwell-beingthroughfourkeypathways(Hartigetal. 2014):first,

Fig.3.5 Thebenefitsofgreenspacesinhigher-densitysettings:Urbangreenspacescanprovidea rangeofhumanwell-being,social,ecologicalandeconomicbenefits,and“compensate”residents livinginhigher-densitysettingsforthelackofprivategreenspace.UrbanParkinMelbourne, Australia. Source CristinaE.Ramalho

bypromotingphysicalactivity(e.g.recreationalwalkingandoutdoorplay);second, reducingexposuretostressfactorsandprovidinganenvironmentforphysiological andmentalrecoverythatdeliverscopingresourcestodealwithlifestressors(Myers 2019);third,promotingsocialinteractionandsenseofcommunity;andfourth,providingahealthy,comfortableurbanenvironment(e.g.betterairqualityandthermal comfort).Overall,thesepathwaysleadtomultiplehealthandwell-beingbenefits thatplayoutacrossanindividual’slifespan(Astell-Burtetal. 2014).Insomecases, peoplecanbenefitfromnatureevenwithoutconsciouslyengagingwithit(e.g.a naturalviewfromawindow;Ulrich 1984;Coxetal. 2019).

Whileincreasedurbandensitycanpersepromotewalkability(incontrastwith low-density,car-dependentneighbourhoods;Udelletal. 2014;Giles-Cortietal. 2012),recreationalwalkingandphysicalactivityingreenspaceshelpstocombat sedentarylifestylesandisassociatedwithareductioninobesity,heartdisease,several typesofcancerandwithextendedlifespans(Pereiraetal. 2013;Belletal. 2008; YelenikandLevine 2011).Notsurprisingly,physicalactivityingreensettings,such asawalkoraruninthepark,ismorerestorativethanconductingthesameactivity inthebuiltenvironment(Marselleetal. 2013).Goodqualityparksandsmallgreen spacesinresidentialprecinctsalsoofferresidentslivingathigherdensitiesmany oftherecreationalbenefitsoftraditionalsuburbangardens.Theseincludeallowing residentstopursueavarietyofhobbiesrelatedwiththenaturalenvironment,tohave

Fig.3.6 Thebenefitsofgreenspacesinhigher-densitysettings:Asidefromthemainurbanparks, GODprecinctsandsurroundingconnectingstreetscapescanuseamyriadofothersmallgreenspaces intheirdesign.Thesesmallgreenspacesprovidefurthersocio-ecologicalbenefitsandcontribute tothevisualqualityoftheresidentialareas. Source CristinaE.Ramalho

dogs(Colemanetal. 2008),tocultivatefruitandvegetablesandtoallowadegreeof personalexpressionthroughgardening(Troy 2004;Seddon 1994).

Activeandpassiverecreationin—orevenindirectexposureto—greenspaces alsoreducesstressandthepsychologicaltollofurbanliving(Tyrväinenetal. 2014; PeschardtandStigsdotter 2013;Bratmanetal. 2015;DeVriesetal. 2013),improves mentalhealth(Francisetal. 2012),attentionrestoration(Nordhetal. 2009)andplays acrucialroleinthecognitivedevelopmentofchildren(Dadvandetal. 2015).Indeed, urbanparksandothergreenspacesprovidechildrenwithuniqueopportunitiesfor risk-taking,discovery,creativity,masteryandcontrol,whichstrengthenssenseof self,inspiresbasicemotionalstatesandenhancespsychologicalrestoration(Bowler etal. 2010).AstudyinMassachusettsshowedthatgreennesswithina2kmradius ofschoolswaspositivelyassociatedwithchildren’sacademicperformanceduring springtime(Wuetal. 2014).Frequentcontactwithnaturealsoreducesthesymptoms ofAttention-DeficitHyperactivityDisorderinchildren(KuoandFaberTaylor 2004). Withinbuiltprecincts,differentgreeningsolutions,suchasgreenroofs,canalsohave positiveeffectsonattentionrestorationandstressreduction(e.g.Leeetal. 2015).

Fig.3.7 Thebenefitsofgreenspacesinhigher-densitysettings:Communityvegetablegardenscan beembeddedintheGODparks,aswellaswithinthesurroundinghigher-densityurbanprecincts.

Source CristinaE.Ramalho

Parksandothergreenspacesarealsoimportanttocreateandreinforcesocial cohesionandsenseofcommunity.Indeed,goodqualityparksprovideaforumfor socializingwithfriendsandneighbours,andthusimprovesocialties(Ka´zmierczak 2013).AlargestudyintheNetherlandsshowedthatpeoplewithmoreparksand otherlargegreenspaceswithin1kmoftheirhomesfelthealthier,lesslonelyand moresociallysupportedthanthosewithoutsuchamenitiesnearby.Thispatternwas strongerinhigh-densityareasandforpeoplewithalowincome,aswellaschildren andtheelderlywho,asaconsequenceoflimitedmobility,relymoreontheirneighbourhoodtosupporttheirneeds(Maasetal. 2009).Arelatedstudyfoundthatpeople withmoregoodqualitystreetscapevegetationfelttheirneighbourhoodwascalmer andmorecohesive,andthiswasrelatedtoimprovedself-reportedhealth(DeVries etal. 2013).InChicago,parkswerefoundtoindirectlymitigatestressbyfostering socialsupport,aneffectthatotherurbanvegetationdidnothave(Fanetal. 2011).

Astotheeffectofbiodiversityonhumanwell-being,Fulleretal.(2007)andDallimeretal.(2012)showedthatgreaterperceivedrichnessofplantsandbirdsinurban parks,aswellasgreaterhabitatdiversity,wereassociatedwithincreasedpsychologicalbenefitstoparkusers.Morerecently,Carrusetal.(2015)andMarselleetal. (2016)showedthatthisassociationismediatedbytheperceivedrestorativequalityofparkswiththosecharacteristics.Inotherwords,perceivedbiodiversity—and naturalness(Marselleetal. 2016)—enhancespeople’sperceivedrestorativeeffect

Fig.3.8 Thebenefitsofgreenspacesinhigher-densitysettings:Largematurestreettreesprovide varioussocio-ecologicalbenefits,includingshade,aestheticsandsenseofplace,andtheycanform thecentrepieceofsmallgreenspacesandinformalseatingand/orrestingareas(WhiteGumValley, Fremantle,Australia). Source CristinaE.Ramalho

ofgreenspaces,whichisassociatedwithgreaterlevelsofwell-being.InBerlin, Palliwodaetal.(2017)concludedthataconsiderableproportionofleisureactivities undertakenbyparkuserswerelinkedtobiodiversity,inparticular,individualplant species,withsomespeciessoughtafterforconsumptionanddecoration,whileothers forsimple insitu observationandexperience.

Urbanbiodiversityalsoallowspeopletomeaningfullyengagewithnatureand learnaboutthenaturalworld.Ascitiesaremorespreadoutthaneverbefore,people arelikelytoprimarilyexperiencenatureintheplaceswheretheyliveandwork(Miller andHobbs 2002).Connectionwithnatureinurbanareasisthuskeytopreventthe extinctionofnature’sexperience(Miller 2005).Furthermore,itfostersenvironmentalstewardshipintheplaceswherepeoplelive,butalsobeyondcities’boundaries (Dunnetal. 2006).Connectionwithurbannatureinchildhoodunderpinslifetime commitmenttowardsenvironmentalprotection,asstatedbymanyprofessionalsand volunteersworkinginthisfield(vandenBornetal. 2018).Furthermore,itadds meaningfulnessandsatisfactiontopeople’slives(Chanetal. 2016).

Fig.3.9 Thebenefitsofdecentqualitygreenspaces:Greenwallsandgreenfacadesrepresent anothergreeningsolutiontobepotentiallyusedinGODprecinctsandconnectingstreetscapes. Thesegreenspacesareespeciallyusefulwhenthegroundlevelislargelysealed(greenwallin Paris,France). Source CristinaE.Ramalho

3.3.2BiodiversityConservation

Urbangreenspacesarenotonlyimportantforpeoplebutalsototheotherspecieswe shareourcitieswith.TherearemorethreatenedspeciesinAustraliancitiesperunit ofareathanelsewhereinthecountry(Ivesetal. 2016),arealitythatmirrorstheUS (Schwartzetal. 2002).Thisreflectsthenegativeimpactthaturbanizationhasonbiodiversity—drivingspeciestoendangerment—butitalsoreflectsadifferent,emerging reality.Somethreatenedspeciesareattractedtotheurbanenvironmentbecauseofthe multipleresourcesavailablethere(e.g.additionalwaterandfood,built-upstructures thatmimicnestingareas;Ivesetal. 2016).Parkscontainingremnantvegetationor semi-naturalhabitatsarecrucialforbiodiversityconservation(Ramalhoetal. 2014; e.g.KohandSodhi 2004),eveniftheyareonlysmallareas(Kendaletal. 2017). Parkswithqualitynativeplantings,includingunderstoreyvegetation(shrubsand herbaceousplants),canalsoprovideimportantrefugiaforbiodiversity,andstepping stonesthatfacilitatespeciesmovementthroughtheurbanlandscape(Threlfalletal. 2015, 2017).Othertypesofgreenspaces,includingstreettrees,streetscapeplantingsandgreenroofs,canalsoplayakeyroleinbiodiversityconservation,namelyby providinghabitatandenhancingecologicalconnectivity(e.g.Mullaneyetal. 2015).

3.3.3ServicestotheLocalEnvironment

Urbangreenspacescanimprovethequalityofthelocalenvironmentthroughtheprovisionofseveralecosystemservices.Reasonablecanopycoverinparks,streetscapes orevenresidentialprecinctscancoolthemicroclimateandimprovethermalcomfort (Couttsetal. 2016).Whiletreescancooldownthemicroclimatethroughevapotranspiration,thisisgenerallyasmalleffectcomparedtothatprovidedbytheirshading, whichcanleadtosubstantiallocalizedreductionsinsurfacetemperature(Coutts etal. 2016).Theroleoftreesinmicroclimaticregulationandthermalcomfortis becomingparticularlyrelevantinaclimatechangecontext,giventhatthecombinationofglobalwarmingandUrbanHeatIslandisleadingtoincreasedtemperaturesin citiesworldwide(Couttsetal. 2010).Suchtemperaturescanposeaseriousthreatto childrenandtheelderlyduringextremeheatevents(KovatsandHajat 2008).Moreover,treesandunderstoreyvegetationinparks,streetscapesandresidentialareascan provideseveralotherecosystemservices,reducingnoisefromsurroundingstreets androads,filteringairpollutants,andstoringcarbon(BolundandHunhammar 1999; Tzoulasetal. 2007).Soilsandvegetationalsointerceptrainfall,decreasingrunoff intostormwaterchannelsandincreasingwaterinfiltrationintosoils(Nourietal. 2013;Ossolaetal. 2015).Withinbuiltprecincts,greensolutionsandtechnologies canimproveindoorairqualityandthermalcomfort(Xingetal. 2017;Balabanand deOliveira 2017).

3.4TheBenefitsofWell-DesignedHigher-DensityUrban

Appropriatelydesignedhigher-densityurbanprecinctssurroundingpublicparkscan offerimportantbenefitstotheutilityoftheparksthemselves.Indeed,anincreased populationpayinglocalratesandtaxesmeansgreaterincome,whichlocalgovernmentscandirecttowardsparkupgradesandmaintenance.Anincreasedpopulation alsomeansmorepeopleinthevicinitytoactivatetheparkandincreaseitssense ofenjoymentandsafetythroughpassivesurveillanceor“eyesonthestreet”(Udell etal. 2014).

Additionally,ahigher-densityurbanprecinctsurroundingapublicgreen spaceprovidestheidealopportunityforexperimentationofurbansustainabilityapproaches,includinggreenbuildingtechnology,urbandesignsolutionsand urbanlivinglabs(Felsonetal. 2013;Voytenkoetal. 2016)(Figs. 3.10 and 3.11).Examplesofurbandesignsolutionsthatcouldimprovepublicparks

Fig.3.10 GODprecedents:Therearemultipleexamplesworldwidethatcouldinspiretheplanning anddesignofGODprecincts.TheWesternHarbourDevelopmentinMalmo,Sweden,isonesuch example.Thisdevelopmentprovidesamodelforurbansustainability,withwell-designedmediumdensityurbanprecinctsbuiltusinggreenbuildingtechnologyandemployinggreeningsolutionsin privatespace(e.g.greenroofs),whilesurroundingrelativelysmallgoodquality,attractivepublic greenspaces. Source CristinaE.Ramalho

includethecollectionofcommunalcompostinganditsuseasfertilizeringardenbedsandcommunalvegetablegardens;theharvestingofgreywaterforirrigation;andthecreationofbio-retentiongardensforfloodmitigationandprovisionofwaterfeaturesandaquatichabitat(Smithetal. 2009;Felsonetal. 2013).Urbanlivinglabsextendbeyondtheexperimentationofdesignandtechnologicalsolutions.Rather,theyentailaformofcollective,multi-actorgovernancethataimstocreativelyco-generateinnovativesocialsolutionsforurban living(Voytenkoetal. 2016),includingtheco-designandestablishmentof placeswithsymbolicmeaning(Frantzeskakietal. 2018)(likelyintheupgraded park).Withoutspacesofmeaningandnarrative,attemptsatinfilldevelopment “willstruggletobemorethanaduplicitousrenderinginareal-estatebrochure” (BarnsandMar 2018).Finally,experimentationofurbansustainabilitysolutions (andtheirmonitoringandtesting)engagesresidentswithsustainabilitygoals (Felsonetal. 2013;SmithandBillig 2012).Itcanchallengethepublicdiscourseabout urbandensificationbyillustratingthebenefitsandsynergiesthatcanbeachievedin higher-densitysettings(Udelletal. 2014).Indeed,upgradedparksprovidesanexcellentopportunitytopubliclydisplaysuchbenefits.

Fig.3.11 GODprecedents:Anexampleofasmallurbangreenspace(withaplaygroundtothe right)atthecentreofamixed-densityresidentialcomplexintheWesternHarbourDevelopment, Malmo(Sweden). Source CristinaE.Ramalho

3.5Conclusion

Webelievethatwell-designedmedium-densityurbanprecinctssurroundingadecent qualitypublicgreenspacecanofferresidentsmanyofthebenefitsofleafysuburban formwithits“greenneighborhoods,freshair,pleasantviewsandshadygardens” (Troy 2004).Moderatelydenseurbanformscanbringdestinationsclosertogether, includinglocalshopsandfacilities,publictransportaccessibility,andimprovedculturalamenity.Publicparks,butalsostreettreesandstreetscapeplantings,notonly provideamyriadofsocialandecologicalbenefitstourbandwellers,theycanalso playacrucialroleinactivatingneighbourhoodsandcreateplaceswithmeaningand senseofplacewhichpeoplefeelattachedto.ParksoftheGODapproachareideal placesforexperimentingwithdesign,technology,socialandgovernancesolutions thatcanhelptransitionurbanenvironmentstohighersustainabilityandlivability standards.Giventhesepotentialsynergies,webelievethatGODprovidesaviable, promisingapproachtosupportsustainableinfillinAustraliansuburbia.

563WhyGOD?TheBenefitsofGreenspace-OrientedDevelopment

References

Astell-BurtT,MitchellR,HartigT(2014)Theassociationbetweengreenspaceandmentalhealth variesacrossthelifecourse.Alongitudinalstudy.JEpidemiolCommunityHealth68(6):578–583

BalabanO,deOliveiraJAP(2017)Sustainablebuildingsforhealthiercities:assessingthecobenefitsofgreenbuildingsinJapan.JCleanProd163:S68–S78

BarnsS,MarP(2018)Re-imaginingParramatta:negotiatingthearrivalofAustralia’snextgreat city.GriffithRev61:223

BellJF,WilsonJS,LiuGC(2008)Neighborhoodgreennessand2-yearchangesinbodymassindex ofchildrenandyouth.AmJPrevMed35(6):547–553

BolundP,HunhammarS(1999)Ecosystemservicesinurbanareas.EcolEcon29(2):293–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0921-8009(99)00013-0

BowlerD,Buyung-AliLM,KnightTM,PullinAS(2010)Asystematicreviewofevidenceforthe addedbenefitstohealthofexposuretonaturalenvironments.BMCPublicHealth10(1):456 BranderLM,KoetseMJ(2011)Thevalueofurbanopenspace:meta-analysesofcontingentvaluationandhedonicpricingresults.JEnvironManage92(10):2763–2773. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jenvman.2011.06.019

BratmanGN,DailyGC,LevyBJ,GrossJJ(2015)Thebenefitsofnatureexperience:improved affectandcognition.LandscUrbanPlan138:41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015. 02.005

BrunnerJ,CozensP(2013)‘Wherehaveallthetreesgone?’Urbanconsolidationandthedemiseof urbanvegetation:acasestudyfromWesternAustralia.PlannPractRes28(2):231–255. https:// doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.733525

ByrneJ,SipeN(2010)Greenandopenspaceplanningforurbanconsolidation—areviewofthe literatureandbestpractice.In:Urbanresearchprogram,volIssuesPaper11.GriffithUniversity, Brisbane,Australia

ByrneJ,SipeN,SearleG(2010)Greenaroundthegills?Thechallengeofdensityforurban greenspaceplanninginSEQ.AustPlan47(3):162–177

CarrusG,ScopellitiM,LafortezzaR,ColangeloG,FerriniF,SalbitanoF,AgrimiM,Portoghesi L,SemenzatoP,SanesiG(2015)Gogreener,feelbetter?Thepositiveeffectsofbiodiversity onthewell-beingofindividualsvisitingurbanandperi-urbangreenareas.LandscUrbanPlan 134:221–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.10.022

ChanKM,BalvaneraP,BenessaiahK,ChapmanM,DíazS,Gómez-BaggethunE,GouldR,Hannahs N,JaxK,KlainS(2016)Opinion:whyprotectnature?Rethinkingvaluesandtheenvironment. ProcNatlAcadSci113(6):1462–1465

CheckerM(2011)Wipedoutbythe“Greenwave”:environmentalgentrificationandtheparadoxical politicsofurbansustainability.CitySoc23(2):210–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-744X. 2011.01063.x

ChiesuraA(2004)Theroleofurbanparksforthesustainablecity.LandscUrbanPlan 68(1):129–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.003

ColemanKJ,RosenbergDE,ConwayTL,SallisJF,SaelensBE,FrankLD,CainK(2008)Physical activity,weightstatus,andneighborhoodcharacteristicsofdogwalkers.PrevMed47(3):309–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.05.007

CouttsA,BeringerJ,TapperN(2010)ChangingurbanclimateandCO2emissions:implications forthedevelopmentofpoliciesforsustainablecities.UrbanPolicyRes28(1):27–47. https://doi. org/10.1080/08111140903437716

CouttsAM,WhiteEC,TapperNJ,BeringerJ,LivesleySJ(2016)Temperatureandhumanthermal comforteffectsofstreettreesacrossthreecontrastingstreetcanyonenvironments.TheoretAppl Climatol124(1–2):55–68

CoxDTC,BennieJ,CasalegnoS,HudsonHL,AndersonK,GastonKJ(2019)Skewedcontributions ofindividualtreestoindirectnatureexperiences.LandscUrbanPlan185:28–34. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.01.008

CromptonJL(2005)Theimpactofparksonpropertyvalues:empiricalevidencefromthepasttwo decadesintheUnitedStates.ManagLeis10(4):203–218

DadvandP,NieuwenhuijsenMJ,EsnaolaM,FornsJ,BasagañaX,Alvarez-PedrerolM,RivasI, López-VicenteM,PascualMDC,SuJ(2015)Greenspacesandcognitivedevelopmentinprimary schoolchildren.ProcNatlAcadSci112(26):7937–7942

DallimerM,IrvineKN,SkinnerAMJ,DaviesZG,RouquetteJR,MaltbyLL,WarrenPH, ArmsworthPR,GastonKJ(2012)Biodiversityandthefeel-goodfactor:understandingassociationsbetweenself-reportedhumanwell-beingandspeciesrichness.Bioscience62(1):47–55. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.1.9

DeVriesS,VanDillenSM,GroenewegenPP,SpreeuwenbergP(2013)Streetscapegreeneryand health:stress,socialcohesionandphysicalactivityasmediators.SocSciMed94:26–33

DoolingS(2009)Ecologicalgentrification:aresearchagendaexploringjusticeinthecity.IntJ UrbanRegRes33(3):621–639

DunnRR,GavinMC,SanchezMC,SolomonJN(2006)Thepigeonparadox:dependenceofglobal conservationonurbannature.ConservBiol20(6):1814–1816. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15231739.2006.00533.x

FanY,DasKV,ChenQ(2011)Neighborhoodgreen,socialsupport,physicalactivity,and stress:assessingthecumulativeimpact.HealthPlace17(6):1202–1211. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.healthplace.2011.08.008

FelsonAJ,BradfordMA,TerwayTM(2013)Promotingearthstewardshipthroughurbandesign experiments.FrontEcolEnviron11(7):362–367

FrancisJ,WoodLJ,KnuimanM,Giles-CortiB(2012)Qualityorquantity?ExploringtherelationshipbetweenPublicOpenSpaceattributesandmentalhealthinPerth,WesternAustralia.Soc SciMed74(10):1570–1577

FrantzeskakiN,vanSteenbergenF,StedmanRC(2018)Senseofplaceandexperimentationin urbansustainabilitytransitions:theResilienceLabinCarnisse,Rotterdam,TheNetherlands. SustainSci13:1045–1059

FullerRA,IrvineKN,Devine-WrightP,WarrenPH,GastonKJ(2007)Psychologicalbenefitsof greenspaceincreasewithbiodiversity.BiolLet3:390–394

Giles-CortiB,RyanK,FosterS(2012)IncreasingdensityinAustralia:maximisingthehealth benefitsandminimisingtheharm.NationalHeartFoundationofAustralia,Melbourne HaalandC,vandenBoschCK(2015)Challengesandstrategiesforurbangreen-spaceplanningin citiesundergoingdensification:areview.UrbanForUrbanGreen14(4):760–771

HaaseD,KabischS,HaaseA,AnderssonE,BanzhafE,BaróF,BrenckM,FischerLK,Frantzeskaki N,KabischN,KrellenbergK,KremerP,KronenbergJ,LarondelleN,MatheyJ,PauleitS,Ring I,RinkD,SchwarzN,WolffM(2017)Greeningcities—tobesociallyinclusive?Aboutthe allegedparadoxofsocietyandecologyincities.HabitatInt64:41–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. habitatint.2017.04.005

HallT(2010)Goodbyetothebackyard?TheminimisationofprivateopenspaceintheAustralian outer-suburbanestate.UrbanPolicyRes28(4):411–433

HartigT,MitchellR,DeVriesS,FrumkinH(2014)Natureandhealth.AnnuRevPublicHealth 35:207–228

IvesCD,LentiniPE,ThrelfallCG,IkinK,ShanahanDF,GarrardGE,BekessySA,FullerRA, MumawL,RaynerL(2016)Citiesarehotspotsforthreatenedspecies.GlobEcolBiogeogr 25(1):117–126

Ka´zmierczakA(2013)Thecontributionoflocalparkstoneighbourhoodsocialties.LandscUrban Plan109(1):31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.007

KendalD,ZeemanBJ,IkinK,LuntID,McDonnellMJ,FarrarA,PearceLM,MorganJW(2017) Theimportanceofsmallurbanreservesforplantconservation.BiolCons213:146–153

KohLP,SodhiNS(2004)Importanceofreserves,fragments,andparksforbutterflyconservation inatropicalurbanlandscape.EcolAppl14(6):1695–1708. https://doi.org/10.1890/03-5269

KovatsRS,HajatS(2008)Heatstressandpublichealth:acriticalreview.AnnuRevPublicHealth 29:41–55

583WhyGOD?TheBenefitsofGreenspace-OrientedDevelopment

KuoFE,FaberTaylorA(2004)Apotentialnaturaltreatmentforattention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder:evidencefromanationalstudy.AmJPublicHealth94(9):1580–1586

LaFargeA(2014)Onthehighline:exploringAmerica’smostoriginalurbanpark.Thamesand Hudson

LeeKE,WilliamsKJ,SargentLD,WilliamsNS,JohnsonKA(2015)40-secondgreenroofviews sustainattention:theroleofmicro-breaksinattentionrestoration.JEnvironPsychol42:182–189 LinB,MeyersJ,BarnettG(2015)Understandingthepotentiallossandinequitiesofgreenspace distributionwithurbandensification.UrbanForUrbanGreen14(4):952–958. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.ufug.2015.09.003

MaasJ,vanDillenSME,VerheijRA,GroenewegenPP(2009)Socialcontactsasapossiblemechanismbehindtherelationbetweengreenspaceandhealth.HealthPlace15(2):586–595. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.09.006

MarselleM,IrvineK,WarberS(2013)Walkingforwell-being:aregroupwalksincertaintypesof naturalenvironmentsbetterforwell-beingthangroupwalksinurbanenvironments?IntJEnviron ResPublicHealth10(11):5603–5628

MarselleM,IrvineKN,Lorenzo-ArribasA,WarberSL(2016)Doesperceivedrestorativeness mediatetheeffectsofperceivedbiodiversityandperceivednaturalnessonemotionalwell-being followinggroupwalksinnature?JEnvironPsychol46:217–232

MellIC(2009)Cangreeninfrastructurepromoteurbansustainability?In:Proceedingsoftheinstitutionofcivilengineers-engineeringsustainability,vol1.ThomasTelfordLtd,pp23–34

MillerJR(2005)Biodiversityconservationandtheextinctionofexperience.TrendsEcolEvol 20(8):430–434

MillerJR,HobbsRJ(2002)Conservationwherepeopleliveandwork.ConservBiol16(2):330–337

MullaneyJ,LuckeT,TruemanSJ(2015)Areviewofbenefitsandchallengesingrowingstreettrees inpavedurbanenvironments.LandscUrbanPlan134:157–166

MyersZ(2019)Ahealingneuropolis:nature,neuroscienceandurbandesign.PalgraveMacMillan NewtonPW(2010)Beyondgreenfieldandbrownfield:thechallengeofregeneratingAustralia’s greyfieldsuburbs.BuiltEnviron36(1):81–104. https://doi.org/10.2148/benv.36.1.81

NewtonPW,MurrayS,WakefieldR,MurphyC,KhorL,MorganT(2011)Towardsanewdevelopmentmodelforhousingregenerationingreyfieldresidentialprecincts.AustralianHousingand UrbanResearchInstituteLimited,Melbourne,Australia

NordhH,HartigT,HagerhallC,FryG(2009)Componentsofsmallurbanparksthatpredictthe possibilityforrestoration.UrbanForUrbanGreen8(4):225–235

NouriH,BeechamS,KazemiF,HassanliAM(2013)AreviewofETmeasurementtechniquesfor estimatingthewaterrequirementsofurbanlandscapevegetation.UrbanWaterJ10(4):247–259

OssolaA,HahsAK,LivesleySJ(2015)Habitatcomplexityinfluencesfinescalehydrological processesandtheincidenceofstormwaterrunoffinmanagedurbanecosystems.JEnvironManage 159:1–10

PalliwodaJ,KowarikI,vonderLippeM(2017)Human-biodiversityinteractionsinurbanparks: thespecieslevelmatters.LandscUrbanPlan157:394–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan. 2016.09.003

PanditR,PolyakovM,SadlerR(2014)Valuingpublicandprivateurbantreecanopycover.AustJ AgricResourEcon58(3):453–470

PanduroTE,VeieKL(2013)Classificationandvaluationofurbangreenspaces—ahedonichouse pricevaluation.LandscUrbanPlan120:119–128

PauleitS,EnnosR,GoldingY(2005)Modelingtheenvironmentalimpactsofurbanlanduseand landcoverchange—astudyinMerseyside,UK.LandscUrbanPlan71(2–4):295–310

PereiraG,ChristianH,FosterS,BoruffBJ,BullF,KnuimanM,Giles-CortiB(2013)Theassociation betweenneighborhoodgreennessandweightstatus:anobservationalstudyinPerth,Western Australia.EnvironHealth12(1):49. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-12-49

PeschardtKK,StigsdotterUK(2013)Associationsbetweenparkcharacteristicsandperceived restorativenessofsmallpublicurbangreenspaces.LandscUrbanPlan112:26–39

RamalhoCE,LalibertéE,PootP,HobbsRJ(2014)Complexeffectsoffragmentationon remnantwoodlandplantcommunitiesofarapidlyurbanizingbiodiversityhotspot.Ecology 95(9):2466–2478. https://doi.org/10.1890/13-1239.1

RyuC,KwonY(2016)Howdomegaprojectsalterthecitytobemoresustainable?Spatial changesfollowingtheSeoulCheonggyecheonrestorationprojectinSouthKorea.Sustainability 8(11):1178

SchwartzMW,JurjavcicNL,O’brienJM(2002)Conservation’sdisenfranchisedurbanpoor.BioScience52(7):601–606

SeddonG(1994)TheAustralianbackyard.In:CravenI(ed)Australianpopularculture.Cambridge UniversityPress,Cambridge,pp22–35

SmithC,ClaydenA,DunnettN(2009)Anexplorationoftheeffectofhousingunitdensityon aspectsofresidentiallandscapesustainabilityinEngland.JUrbanDes14(2):163–187. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13574800802670978

SmithCA,BilligNS(2012)Publicperceptionsofcompactsuburbiainprogressive,burgeoning communities.JUrbanDes17(3):313–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2012.683401

SugiyamaT,GunnLD,ChristianH,FrancisJ,FosterS,HooperP,OwenN,Giles-CortiB(2015) Qualityofpublicopenspacesandrecreationalwalking.AmJPublicHealth105(12):2490–2495

ThrelfallCG,MataL,MackieJA,HahsAK,StorkNE,WilliamsNS,LivesleySJ(2017)Increasingbiodiversityinurbangreenspacesthroughsimplevegetationinterventions.JApplEcol 54(6):1874–1883

ThrelfallCG,WalkerK,WilliamsNS,HahsAK,MataL,StorkN,LivesleySJ(2015)TheconservationvalueofurbangreenspacehabitatsforAustraliannativebeecommunities.BiolCons 187:240–248

TroyP(2004)Savingourcitieswithsuburbs.In:SchultzJ(ed)Griffithreview:dreamsofland. GriffithUniversity,Brisbane

TyrväinenL,OjalaA,KorpelaK,LankiT,TsunetsuguY,KagawaT(2014)Theinfluenceofurban greenenvironmentsonstressreliefmeasures:afieldexperiment.JEnvironPsychol38:1–9

TzoulasK,KorpelaK,VennS,Yli-PelkonenV,KazmierczakA,NiemelaJ,JamesP(2007)Promotingecosystemandhumanhealthinurbanareasusinggreeninfrastructure:aliteraturereview. LandscUrbanPlan81(3):167–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.001

UdellT,DaleyM,JohnsonB,TolleyR(2014)Doesdensitymatter?Theroleofdensityincreating walkableneighbourhoods.NationalHeartFoundationofAustralia,Melbourne UlrichR(1984)Viewthroughawindowmayinfluencerecoveryfromsurgery.Science 224(4647):420–421. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.6143402 vandenBornRJ,ArtsB,AdmiraalJ,BeringerA,KnightsP,MolinarioE,HorvatKP,Porras-Gomez C,SmrekarA,SoetheN(2018)Themissingpillar:eudemonicvaluesinthejustificationofnature conservation.JEnvironPlanManag61(5–6):841–856

VoytenkoY,McCormickK,EvansJ,SchliwaG(2016)Urbanlivinglabsforsustainabilityandlow carboncitiesinEurope:towardsaresearchagenda.JCleanProd123:45–54

WolchJR,ByrneJ,NewellJP(2014)Urbangreenspace,publichealth,andenvironmentaljustice: Thechallengeofmakingcities‘justgreenenough’.LandscUrbanPlan125:234–244. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017

WuC-D,McNeelyE,Cedeño-LaurentJ,PanW-C,AdamkiewiczG,DominiciF,LungS-CC,Su H-J,SpenglerJD(2014)LinkingstudentperformanceinMassachusettselementaryschoolswith the“greenness”ofschoolsurroundingsusingremotesensing.PLoSONE9(10):e108548

XingY,JonesP,DonnisonI(2017)Characterisationofnature-basedsolutionsforthebuiltenvironment.Sustainability9(1):149

YelenikSG,LevineJM(2011)Theroleofplant–soilfeedbacksindrivingnative-speciesrecovery. Ecology92(1):66-74. https://doi.org/10.1890/10-0465.1

Chapter4

AManualforImplementing

Greenspace-OrientedDevelopment

Abstract WhileinthepreviouschapterwedefinedGreenspace-OrientedDevelopment(GOD)andexplainedthemultitudeofbenefitsitoffers,hereweexplain howpractitionerscanimplementGOD.Wesuggestastep-by-stepprocessthataims toguideGODimplementation.Thesestepsare:(1)selectparksforupgrading;(2) upgradeparks;(3)rezonetheurbanprecinctssurroundingparks;(4)catalyzeand facilitateredevelopment;(5)decentralizeservicesinfrastructure;(6)conductneedsbasedassessmentandequipparks,and(7)upgradesurroundingkeystreetscapes. Thisstep-by-stepprocesssetsouthowGODcanguideurbandensificationwhile offeringmultiplesocio-ecologicalbenefitsthroughtheredesignandactivationof publicgreenspaces.

Keywords Greenspace-OrientedDevelopment · Transit-OrientedDevelopment · Urbanbiodiversity · Urbanconsolidation · Urbandesign · Urbaninfill · Urban greenspace · Urbanparks · Publicopenspace

4.1HowCouldGODHelptoDeliverUrbanInfill inSuburbanCities?

Here,weexplainhowpractitionerscanachieveGODinastep-by-stepprocess (Fig. 4.1).Thisdetailedprocessislikelytobeparticularlyusefultomultidisciplinary teamsofpractitionersinvolvedintheplanninganddesignofurbangreenspacesand residentialareas.Theseteamsmayincludeplanners,architects,landscapearchitects, urbandesigners,engineers,parkmanagers,environmentalandsocialscienceexperts developersandpolicymakers,amongothers.

Alongsidediscussingkeyaspectsrelevanttoeachstep,weuseahypothetical casestudyparkfordemonstration.Thisparkisnominally7.5hainsizeandis surroundedbysuburbanhousingat15dwellingsperhaandminorroads.Thepark is,inits“existing”state,gearedtowardsactiverecreationandcontainsthreeovals andminimalcoverbymaturetreesandunderstoreyplantings.Suchahypothetical parkistypicalofmanygreyfieldsuburbsand,therefore,ourproposalsforitsupgrade aregeneralizable.

©TheAuthor(s),underexclusivelicensetoSpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG2020 J.BolleterandC.E.Ramalho, Greenspace-OrientedDevelopment, SpringerBriefsinGeography, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29601-8_4

1. Select parks for upgrading

Select parks that are within a 5-minute cycle or a 20-minute walk (approximately 1,600 m) to public transport, and that are greater than 1 ha in size

2. Upgrade parks

Upgrade parks to increase their attractiveness and the socio-ecological benefits they provide

3. Rezone the parks ’ surrounding precincts

Rezone the 400 m urban precinct surrounding the park for higher density

4. Catalyze and facilitate redevelopment

Facilitate redevelopment catalyzed by the increase in land values resulting from both upgrading the parks and rezoning their precincts

5. Decentralize services infrastructure

Reduce the reliance of each park’s higher-density urban precinct on centralized water, power, energy and wastewater infrastructure

6. Conduct needs-based assessment and equip park

Equip the “loose fit” space in relation to the requirements of the local community

7. Upgrade surrounding key streetscapes

Facilitate the upgrade of the local streets connecting GOD parks to schools, train stations or transport hubs, and main shopping areas

Fig.4.1 AchievingGOD:ThisdiagramsetsouthowpractitionerscanachieveGODinaseven-step process.Weexplainthisprocessinfullinthischapter

4.1HowCouldGODHelptoDeliverUrbanInfillinAustralianCities?63

Urban areas

Train stations

Upgraded parks and densified catchments

Fig.4.2 Selectparksforupgrading:Inthefirstinstance,practitionersneedtoidentifytheparks thatwillformthefocusofGOD.Wesuggestthatproximitytopublictransportandparksizeare twokeycriteriathatshouldguideparks’prioritization

4.1.1Step1:SelectParksforUpgrading

Inthefirstinstance,practitionersneedtoidentifytheparksthatwillformthefocusof GODprecinctsinmiddle-ringsuburbs.Wesuggestthatreasonableaccesstopublic transportandparksizearetwokeycriteriathatshouldguideparks’prioritization. Weconsiderthatreasonableaccesscanbeunderstoodasbeingwithina5-minute cycleora15–20-minutewalk(approximately1,600m)totrainstationsorrapidbus transit(Fig. 4.2).Intermsofsize,parksshouldbegreaterthan1hainarea.While thereisnoparticularreasonbehindthisspecificsuggestedsize,largerparkshave generallygreaterpotentialtoprovideawiderrangeofsocial(e.g.Giles-Cortietal. 2005;Sugiyamaetal. 2010)andecological(e.g.Nielsenetal. 2014)benefitsthan smallerparks.

4.1.2Step2:UpgradeParks

Inthisstep,practitionersredesigntheselectedparkstoincreasetheirattractiveness andthesocio-ecologicalbenefitstheyprovide,whichshouldthenraiselandvalues

644AManualforImplementingGreenspace-OrientedDevelopment andencourageredevelopmentofthesurroundingurbanprecinct.Asidentifiedin Chap. 3,severalkeyaspectsshouldguidethisstep.

First, itiscrucialtoengageandconsultwithresidentsandstakeholdersinorderto identifytheirpreferencesandneeds (Huang 2010;Shan 2012;Jim 2013).Engagementshouldtrytoidentifytherequirementsofcurrent,aswellasfutureresident demographic,socialandculturalgroups.Whilethisiskeytoguidingparkredesign,it mayalsohaveapositiveimpactonresidents’perceptionsandacceptanceofthetransformationsintheirparkandneighbourhood(JimandShan 2013;Haaseetal. 2017; SmithandBillig 2012).Asidefromtheinsightderivedfromcommunityengagementprocesses,itisimportanttoacknowledgetheneedsofadiversepopulationthat willincludeolderpeople,children,adolescents,parents,singlepeopleandfamilies, wealthyandthepoor.Recognizingthisdiversitywillassistintheparksredesign andwillhelptooptimizethedeliveryofsocio-ecologicalbenefitstodifferentresidentgroups,notonlyforthosepayingthecheques.Thisisimportanttominimize gentrificationandpromoteinclusiveness(Haaseetal. 2017;ByrneandSipe 2010).

Second, ifparksaretocaterfordifferentgroupsandtheirneedsanddelivermultiplebenefits,thenamultidisciplinaryapproachisneededtoinformhowthiscanbe achieved (Jamesetal. 2009;Jim 2013;Hansenetal. 2019).Greenspacedesignis oftenbasedontraditionallandscapearchitectureconceptsandaesthetics,withlittle considerationofneworcontrastingknowledgeheldbyotherdisciplines(Hjortetal. 2018).IntheredesignofGODparks,evidence-informedknowledgefromdisciplines suchasecology,publichealth,environmentalphysiologyandengineeringisneeded toestablishclearrelationshipsbetweenthecharacteristicsofthebiophysicalenvironment(andthechangestobebroughtuponit)andtheirfunctionsandbenefits (Hjortetal. 2018;Ko 2018).GODproponentscanachievethis,forexample,by engagingandconsultingwithexpertsfromdifferentfields,includingcouncilstaff, consultantsand/orexpertsfromotheragencies(e.g.landmanagementandresearch organizations).

Third, parkdesignshouldbearesponseto andcelebrationof theirimmediate environment (Seddon 2005).Whilethisisobvious,therealityisthatNorthEuropean aestheticvalues,designandplantingtraditionshaveheavilyinfluencedthedesignof Australiansuburbanparks.Aresponsetotheimmediate biophysicalenvironment in theredesignofGODparksshouldentailasensitiveapproachtowaterandfertilizer use,thepreservationandenhancementofanyremnantvegetation,retentionandprotectionofmaturetrees(BrunnerandCozens 2013),predominantuseofunderstorey (shrubsandherbaceous)nativeplants(seeWebb 2013;HerdandIvankovic-Waters 2017;Powell 2009),andenhancementofconditionsthatattractandsustainlocal biodiversity(Figs. 4.3 and 4.4).Aresponsetotheimmediate socialandcultural environment shouldrecognizeandcelebratethecontemporaryculturaldiversityof Australianlocalneighbourhoods.ThisshouldentailthecreationofplacesthatcelebrateIndigenouscultureandfoster“decolonization”andsocialhealing(Fig. 4.5).

Fig.4.3 Parkdesignasacelebrationoftheimmediateenvironment:TheredesignofGODparks shouldrespondtoitsbiophysicalenvironment.Suchmayentailpreservingandenhancingany remnantvegetation,retainingandprotectingmaturetrees,andenhancingconditionsthatattractand sustainlocalbiodiversity. Source CristinaE.Ramalho

Inrelationtotheredesignofourhypotheticalcasestudy,belowwesuggestseveral approachesthatcouldenhancethesocio-ecologicalbenefitsprovidedandimprove theexperienceofnaturebyresidents.Readerscanobservetheseapproachesinmany well-designedAustralianpublicgreenspaces.Weemphasizethoughthatthesuggestionspresentedherearemerelydemonstrative.1

Focusingonthehypotheticalcasestudypark,weproposetheplantingofpark edgeswithadiversepalletofsuitablenativeandnon-nativetrees,nativelowshrubs andherbaceousplants,sothattheyassumeamorevegetatedanddiverseappearance, particularlywhenviewedfromsurroundingproperties(Fig. 4.6).Thisplanting“armature”followingorganic,non-rigidlineswouldswatheacircuitouspromenade,as wellasseveralsmallerspacesdesignedtoallowforassortedfunctions(Fig. 4.7). Thesespacescouldinclude,forexample,drainageswalesforfilteringandcleansingstormwaterflowingoffthehigherelevationadjacentroads,whichinsuitable locationswouldbedesignedtomimicnaturalwetlands(e.g.Guzman 2017).

1 Asmentionedabove,properconsultationwiththelocalcommunityandstakeholderstoidentify theirneedsandperspectives,aswellasamultidisciplinaryapproachtounderstandhowaresponse tosuchneedscanberealizedintheparkredesign,arefundamentaltoguidethisstep.Nonetheless, hereweprovideexamplesofwhatGODproponentscouldachieve.

Fig.4.4 Parkdesignasacelebrationoftheimmediateenvironment:Nativeplantsofferamagnificentpalletofcolours,formsandtextures,provideecologicalresourcestolocalbiodiversity (e.g.birdsandinsects),andrequirelittlewaterandfertilizer.Wethereforerecommendtheirusein plantingsofGODprecincts. Source CristinaE.Ramalho

Individualbenchescouldbepositionedinreclusivequietareasforrestandcontemplation(Nordhetal. 2009;NordhandØstby 2013),whileinotherareasclustered benchescouldfacilitatesocialinteraction(GrahnandStigsdotter 2010).Inbothcases, bencheswouldfaceawayfromtraffic,builtorbusysettings,andbesurroundedby nativeplantings,inordertopromotementalrestorationandconnectionwithnature (NordhandØstby 2013).

Practitionerscouldalsoprovideareasforchildren’splay,suchasnature-based playareas,aswellaspicnictablesandbarbecueareas(Fig. 4.8).Thesedifferent areaswouldincreasetheopportunitiesforrecreationalwalking,nature-basedand passiverecreation,andwouldalsoenhancetheecologicalbenefitsprovidedbythe parkanditsabilitytosupportbiodiversity.Also,this“softshell”ofvegetationwould actasabufferbetweentheproposedactiverecreationoccurringinthecentralareas oftheparkandtheneighbouringresidents,reducingthepotentialfornoiseandsports lighting-relatedcomplaints(LutzenhiserandNetusil 2001).Wesuggestthatthepark couldhavealow,visuallyunobtrusivefence,topreventchildrenanddogsfrom

Fig.4.5 Parkdesignasacelebrationoftheimmediateenvironment:TheredesignofGODparks shouldalsorespondtothesocialandculturalenvironment.TheparklandoftheOptusStadium intheBurswoodPeninsula,Perth,offersmultipleexamplesofhowparkdesigncancelebrate Indigenousculture.Indigenouselementsareembeddedintheartwork(suchasthemessagestick intheforeground),builtinfrastructure,plantpallets,localmaterialsandeducationsignage. Source CristinaE.Ramalho

runningontothesurroundingroads,andtodirectentrytotheparkatspecificpoints. Entrypointscouldbelocatedatstreetintersectionstohelpdeviateparkfoottraffic awayfromfringingresidentialbuildings.

Whiletheheartoftheparkistoremainopen,weproposethatpractitionersconsolidatethethreesportsovalsintoonesingleoval,whichwouldbere-turfedwith ahybridspeciesthatallowsforgreaterfrequencyofsportingandcommunityuses (e.g.festivalsandmarkets).Theconsolidationoftheovalareaisnotmeanttodetract fromtheimportantsocialandrecreationalfunctionsofteamsportsbuttoprovide agreaternumberofpassive(andactive)recreationalpursuits.Also,ovalslocated inotherurbanparksthatarenotinzonesofproposedGODdensificationcould specificallycatertomajoractivesportsevents.

Theareafreedupbytheconsolidatedovalswouldbeaflexible“loose-fit”space (FranckandStevens 2007;Thompson 2002)allowingforavarietyoffunctions developedinrelationtoshiftingcommunitypreferences.Researchershavesuggested that“loosespacesofferafreedomofchoiceofactivitiesandmoremeansofcarrying

Fig.4.6 Parkupgrades,beforeandafter:Weproposetheplantingofparkedgeswithadiverse palletofsuitablenativeandnon-nativetrees,lownativeshrubsandherbaceousplants

Fig.4.7 Parkupgrades,beforeandafter:Theplanting“armature”framingtheparkwouldswathe acircuitouspromenadeandseveralsmallerspacesdesignedtoallowforassortedfunctions.Such couldincludedrainageswalesandwetlands(asshown)forfilteringandcleansingstormwaterand providinghabitatforbiodiversity.ImagesbyRobertCameron

Fig.4.8 Parkupgrades,beforeandafter:Practitionerscouldprovideareasforchildren’splay,such asnature-basedplayareas,aswellaspicnictablesandbarbecueareas.Thesedifferentareaswould increasetheopportunitiesforrecreationalwalking,passiverecreationandsocialinteraction.Images byRobertCameron

4.1HowCouldGODHelptoDeliverUrbanInfillinAustralianCities?71

themout”,andthatsuchspacesareopentoappropriationbythelocalcommunity (FranckandStevens 2007;Thompson 2002).2 Theexactuseofthisspacecouldbe establishedaftersignificantresidentialdensificationhasoccurred(step4)througha comprehensiveneeds-basedassessment.

4.1.3Step3:RezonetheUrbanPrecinctSurroundingParks

Inthisstep,plannersshouldrezonethe400murbanprecinctsurroundingthepark. Thisprecinctiscommensuratewiththeareainwhichthepark’supgradeislikelyto liftpropertyvalues(Crompton 2005;LutzenhiserandNetusil 2001).Wealsointend forthistobetheareatoundergosignificantinfilldevelopment.

Forthehypotheticalcasestudypark,wevisualizetherezoningofthesurrounding urbanprecinctintothreezonesofdifferingdensity:40dwellingsperhafurthestfrom thepark,60dwellingsperhamid-way,and80dwellingsperhaclosesttothepark. Thesezoningdensitiescorrelatetosemi-detacheddwellings,rowhouses,andlowriseapartments,respectively(KelletandRofe 2009).Ifsubstantiallyachieved,these zoningdensitieswouldincreasethetotalpopulationofthestudyareafrom1,500to around6,500people.3 TogiveanideaofthecapacityofGOD,Perth(forinstance) has420suitablegreyfieldparks;iftheseparksandtheirsurroundingurbanprecincts weredevelopedusingGOD,itcouldyieldwellover2millionnewinfilldwellings. Thisissubstantiallymorethanthestategovernment’sinfilldwellingtargetof121,000 dwellingsforthesameareaby2031(WesternAustralianDepartmentofPlanning 2010).

Wealsosuggestthatpractitionersshouldrezonetheareasimmediatelyadjacent totheparktoallowretail,foodandbeverage,andoffice4 landuses,aswellas residential.Thezoningofthewalkableprecinctshouldalsoallowothercommunity servicesandfunctions,suchasretirementhomesandchildcarecentres,whichhave potentialsynergieswithupgradedgreenspaces.ThiswillensurethatGODparksare, asJaneJacobsevoked,“wherelifeswirls–wherethereiswork,cultural,residential andcommercialactivity–asmuchaspossibleofeverythingthatcitiescanoffer” (Jacobs 1962).

2 Thisisparticularlytrueforchildren.Whiletheliteratureandguidelinesoftenfocusonmore structuredfeaturesofparksandopenspace(suchasplaygroundequipmentandpaths),froma broaderchilddevelopmentperspective,providingopportunitiesforcreativeplay,exploring,makebelieve,contactwithdifferenttexturesandexposuretonatureareallcritical,andoftenmissingin themoretypical“plasticfantastic”playgroundsoftoday(Wood 2008).

3 Thispresumesthattheprecinctwas75%redevelopedatthezoneddensitiesandthateachdwelling containedahouseholdoftwopeople.

4 Adisincentivetoworkingfromhomeisalackofsocialinteraction.Co-workingmightoffera middlegroundwherepeoplecouldshareandrentadeskspaceataco-workingofficeclosetotheir homeinsteadofgoingtothe“city”(Gladstoneetal. 2016).

Again,weemphasizethatthesuggestionswehavepresentedhereinStep3are merelydemonstrativeandwoulddependoncommunitysentimenttowardsinfill development,landvaluesandexistinglotsizes,amongstotherfactors.

4.1.4Step4:CatalyzeandFacilitateRedevelopment

Wesuggestthatthecombinedeffectofbothupgradingtheparksandrezoningtheir surroundingurbanprecinctsislikelytocatalyzetheredevelopmentofthearea,due toanincreaseinadjacentprivatelandvalues.Studiesusinghedonicvaluationtechniques,whichestimatetheinfluenceofthelocalityandhouseattributesonhousing prices,haveconsistentlyindicatedthathigh-qualityparksandlakesraiseproperty valuesinadjacentareas,butthatsportsfieldsdonothavethesameeffect(Panduro andVeie 2013;BranderandKoetse 2011;Crompton 2005;LutzenhiserandNetusil 2001).

InPortland,US,LutzenhiserandNetusil(2001)foundthatparkswithmorethan 50%oftheirareacoveredwithnaturalvegetation,andusedmostlyforbiodiversity conservationandnature-orientedrecreation(e.g.walking,wildlifeviewing),hadthe largestpositiveeffectonthesalepriceofhouseslocatedwithina450mradius. Incontrast,parkswithmorethan50%oftheirareamanicuredorlandscaped,and usedprimarilyforactiverecreation(e.g.ballfieldsandsportscourts),hadthelowest positiveeffectonpropertyvaluessurroundingtheopenspace.Verysimilarresults wereobservedbyCrompton(2005)inatwo-decadereviewoftheimpactofparks onpropertyvaluesintheUS.InPerth,Panditetal.(2014)foundthatbushreserves, lakesandgolfcourseshadapositiveimpactonpropertyprices,butthesamewasnot observedforsportsreserves.Theauthorsfurthernotedthat,onaverage,theproperty pricepremiumincreasedbyAU$14,500fora10%increaseintreecanopycoveron adjacentpublicspace.

Giventheabovedata,upgradingsuburbanparksusingaGODapproachshould raisenearbyrealestatevalues.Thiswillprovidelocalgovernmentswithgreater resourcesforparkmaintenance5 andshouldstimulateredevelopment(Pracsys 2012; Newtonetal. 2011),whichincombinationwithincreasedresidentialzoningdensitiesshoulddelivergreaterurbandensification.Thestimulationofredevelopment is,inpart,explainedbytheIndexofPropertyRedevelopmentPotential.Thisindex indicatesthatbyincreasingthevalueofaparceloflandinrelationtothevalueofthe house,redevelopmentisencouraged(Newtonetal. 2011).Thisiscrucialbecauseif developmentisnotfeasible,quitesimply,nothingwillhappen.

Asredevelopmentofthepark’sprecinctoccurs,itiscrucialthatcontrolsarein placetoensurethatbackgroundinfill,aswediscussedinChap. 2,doesnotrunriot. Wesuggestthatpractitionerscouldusethefollowingkeycontrolstosupportthe redevelopmentofthepark’surbanprecinct.Wehavedevelopedthesecontrolsbased

5 Increasesinpropertyvalueincreasetherevenuetolocalgovernmentsfrompropertyrates(Pauli andBoruff 2016).

4.1HowCouldGODHelptoDeliverUrbanInfillinAustralianCities?73

oninterviewswithpropertydevelopers,architects,communityrepresentatives,real estateexpertsandplanners.

4.1.4.1MandateMinimumLotSizes

Practitionersshouldconstrainbackground,low-densityinfillbyestablishingminimumlotsizes—anddensities—forredevelopmentintheGODprecinct.Whileit willvaryfromareatoarea,apossibleminimumlotsizeofaround1,200m2 will essentiallyprecludeanyinfillunlessdeveloperscanamalgamateadjoininglots—the typicallotbeing1,000m2 orlessingreyfieldsuburbs(Fig. 4.9).Shortofmandating

Fig.4.9 Mandateminimumlotsizes:Practitionersshouldconstrainbackground,low-densityinfill byestablishingminimumlotsizesforredevelopmentintheGODprecincts

744AManualforImplementingGreenspace-OrientedDevelopment

minimumlotsizes,localgovernmentscouldoffergreaterincentivestoencourage landamalgamation,suchaszoningsthatallowhigherdensitiesforamalgamatedlots. Theimportanceofenforcing(orincentivizing)lotamalgamationintheparkprecinct isthatitcreateslargerdevelopmentsites.Thisinturnprovidesbuildingdesigners withtheadditionalroomneededtorespondtosolarorientationandexistingtrees, andachievehigherbuildingswhilereducingtheperceiveddensity.6

4.1.4.2ProtectandDensifytheUrbanForest

AsexplainedinChap. 2,oneofthereasonslocalcommunitiesmayopposeurban infillisbecausetheyperceiveittobeanassaultonthe“leafygreenness”oftheir neighbourhoods.Acontrolthatcouldpartiallyrespondtothis,whileensuringthe presenceoftreesinthepark’surbanprecinct,wouldbeonethatretainsandprotects maturetrees,andestablishesminimumareasfordeepsoilzonestoallowforthe healthygrowthofnewtrees.

Onewayofaidingtreeretentionistoallowbuildingstobebuiltrightuptolot boundariesonseveralsidestoproducemoreconsolidatedinternal“courtyard”areas ofprivateopenspacefortreeplanting(Figs. 4.10 and 4.11).Thiswouldcombat thenarrow“corridors”ofprivateopenspacebetweenalotboundaryandabuilding commonlyproducedbyregulatedbuildingsetbacks,forexample,intheWestern AustralianResidentialDesignCodes.7 Practitionersshouldalsosupportthedelivery ofmoreslenderbuildingswithsmallerfootprints,andplaceoutdoorlivingspaces onroofterraces,thusfreeingupthegroundlevelfortreeandunderstoreyplanting8 (Figs. 4.12 and 4.13).

4.1.4.3DevelopUsingEnvironmentalandSocialSustainability Approaches

Thedesignofthehigher-densityurbanprecinctshouldusegreenbuildingtechnology andembedgreeningsolutionsthatsoftenthepark–urbantransition,createvisual connectivityandquality,andprovideadditionalgreenspacebenefitstoresidents. Thedesignshouldalsoactivelymitigatethepotentialnegativeimpactsofhigherdensityhousing,suchascrowding,noiseandindoorairqualityissues(Giles-Corti

6 Theeffectofmaintainingmaturetreesistodecreasethe“perceiveddensity”ofdevelopment(as opposedtotheactualdensity),whichshouldreducecommunityresistance(ChengandSteemers 2010).

7 Smalltreestypicallyrequireanareaof3.5 × 3.5m(DepartmentofPlanning 2016).Assuch,these narrowcorridorseffectivelyprecludetreeplanting(largeorsmall).

8 Practitionersshouldcarefullychooseplantsthatdonotdroplimbs,donothavelargeandshallow rootingsystems,andhavelowflammabilityifinbushfire-proneareas.

4.1HowCouldGODHelptoDeliverUrbanInfillinAustralianCities?75

Fig.4.10 Protectanddensifytheurbanforest:Onewayofaidingretentionofmaturetreesis toallowbuildingstobebuiltrightuptolotboundariesonanumberofsidestoproducemore consolidatedinternal“courtyard”areasofprivateopenspacefortreeplanting

etal. 2012).Equallyimportant,developersshoulddeliverarangeofhousingsizes, stylesandpriceoptions,sothatthehigher-densityurbanprecinctcancaterforall agesandstagesoflife,aswellasincomelevels.Thiswouldminimizegentrification andpromotesocialinclusiveness.

4.1.5Step5:DecentralizeServicesInfrastructure

Inthisstep,practitionersshouldreducetherelianceofeachpark’shigher-density urbanprecinctoncentralizedwater,power,energyandwastewatermanagement

Fig.4.11 Protectanddensifytheurbanforest:Practitionersshoulddesigncourtyarddwellingsthat arearrangedaroundexistingmaturetrees(anddeepsoilzones)andframeviewsofvegetation

Fig.4.12 Protectanddensifytheurbanforest:Practitionersshouldalsosupportthedeliveryof moreslenderbuildingswithsmallerfootprints,andplaceoutdoorlivingspacesonroofterraces, thusfreeingupthegroundlevelfortreeandunderstoreyplanting

Protectanddensifytheurbanforest:Withappropriatebuildingtypesandappropriatetreespecies(e.g.,relativelysmalltreeswithoutlargeshal low rootingsystems),practitionerscanincreasethedensityofurbanformandtheurbanforestsimultaneously

Fig.4.13

784AManualforImplementingGreenspace-OrientedDevelopment infrastructure.9 Decentralizedinfrastructure,inthiscontext,couldincludewastewatertreatmentfacilitiestocleanandrecyclegreyandblackwaterfromthehigherdensityarea.Tanksbeloworabovegroundcouldstoresuchwaterforirrigationinthe park,urbanprecinctandsurroundingstreetscapes.Facilitiesforgreenwastecollectionandcompostingcouldalsobemadeavailable(Grace 2013).Inthisrespect,the upgradedparkanditsdensifiedurbanprecinctwouldfunctionasacellofdecentralizedinfrastructure,whichistosomeextentfreefromtheinefficienciesoftypically ageing,centralizedinfrastructure(Grace 2013;Newmanetal. 2009).

4.1.6Step6:ConductNeeds-BasedAssessmentandEquip Park

Inthisstep,aftersignificantdensificationhasoccurredinthepark’surbanprecinct, wesuggestlocalgovernmentsand/orcommunitygroupsequipthe“loose-fit”space intheparksothatitprovidesadditionalrecreationalamenitytothelocalcommunity (Fig. 4.14).Atthispoint,practitionersshouldconductaneeds-basedassessmentto establishtherecreationalfacilitiesandequipmentrequiredtoactivatethepark.A needs-basedassessmentisimportantbecause,asByrneandSipe(2010)explained, “thereisnotypicalhigher-densityresident”.Indeed,higher-densityresidentsvary inage,income,race/ethnicity,householdcomposition,familystatusandthelike. Practitionerscouldpartlyconductthisneeds-basedassessmentusingasmartphone applicationand/orwebsitethatmakesengagementeasier,especiallyifitincludes three-dimensionalvisualizationtoolsandonlineconsultation(KellyandDonegan 2015).

Theneeds-basedassessmentshouldleadtotheidentificationofadiverserange ofactivitiesandusesfortheloose-fitspace(KelletandRofe 2009).Theseuses couldincludeskate-ablespaces,informalBMXareas,basketballandnetballrings, soccergoalsandspaces(notawholefield),innovativeplayareas,fitnessequipment, encloseddogexerciseareasandcommunityvegetablegardens(SuterPlanners 2011). Complementingtheseusesarethetypicallyorganizedteamsportsthattheretained ovalcatersfor,andthepassiverecreationandnature-orientedusesthatthepark’s “armature”redesigncatersfor.

Atthisstage,localgovernmentsshouldconsiderincludingaprivatecaféorkiosk tofurtheractivatetheplaceandprovidearevenuestream.Alargenumberofparks inEuropeandtheUScontainfoodstands,kiosks,cafés,restaurants,beergardens, equipmenthirefacilitiesandotherapplicablecommercialusesthatcanprovide revenuetolocalgovernmentsforongoingparkmaintenance(ByrneandSipe 2010).

9 Suchparkswillneedtobelargerthan2ha.Therefore,notallparkswillbesuitableforthe decentralizationofinfrastructure.

Fig.4.14 Conductneeds-basedassessmentandequippark:Aftersignificantdensificationhasoccurredinthepark’sprecinct,wesuggestlocalgovernments and/orcommunitygroupsequipthe“loose-fit”spaceinthepark(pictured)sothatitprovidesadditionalrecreationalamenitytothelocalcommunity

4.1.7Step7:UpgradeSurroundingKeyStreetscapes

Inthislaststep,practitionersshouldoverseetheupgradeofthelocalstreetsconnectingGODparkstoschools,trainstationsortransporthubs,andmainshopping areas(Figs. 4.15, 4.16 and 4.17).Thesestreetsshouldbeconceptualizedasshared zonespromotingactivetransport(walkingandcycling),aswellasemergingtransporttypes,suchasneighbourhoodelectricvehicles,mobilityscooters(gophers), e-bikesande-scooters(Atkins 2016),whilereducingthespeedandimpactofcars.10 Connectingstreetscapesshouldalsoprovidesharedcommunityfacilities,suchas smallplaygrounds,communitygardens,benchesandotherdesignedstreetfurniture, aswellasappropriatecanopycover(CouttsandTapper 2017;Sanusietal. 2017) andunderstoreyplantings.Ifspaceistightontheground,thengreenspacescan beencapsulatedwithinthebuiltenvironmentitself,namelyinbuildingfacadesand walls.

Practitionerscanfacilitatetheupgradingofthesestreetstobesharedzonesby reconfiguringtheroadwaysothatit“meanders”,creatingusableareasofpublic greenspaceseitherside,ratherthanmerelybisectingtheroadreservedirectlydown

Fig.4.15 Upgradesurroundingkeystreetscapes:Inthislaststep,practitionersshouldoversee theupgradeofthelocalstreets(showninorange)connectingtheupgradedparkstoschools,train stationsortransporthubs,andmainshoppingareas

10 ThiswillbehelpedbythewidespreadadoptionofFullyAutomatedVehicles,whichwillbe generallysaferthanhumandrivers(Gladstoneetal. 2016).

Fig.4.16 Upgradesurroundingkeystreetscapes,beforeandafter:Theseupgradedstreetsshould beconceptualizedassharedzonespromotingactivetransport,aswellasemergingtransporttypes, suchase-bikesande-scooters,whilereducingthespeedandimpactofcars

Fig.4.17 Upgradesurroundingkeystreetscapes:Connectingstreetscapesshouldprovideshared communityfacilities,aswellasappropriatecanopycover

themiddle.Thispropositionisnothingnew.Thesharedstreet(Woonerf)concept hasbeenadoptedinguidelinesandregulationsoriginallyintheNetherlands(1976) andalsoinmanyothercountries:Germany,England,SwedenandDenmark,France, Japan,IsraelandSwitzerland(Ben-Joseph 2007).

Plannersshouldcomplementtheincreasedopenspaceamenityalongconnecting streetscapeswithanincreaseinresidentialdensity.Again,thisredevelopmentwillbe incentivisedbecausegreatercanopyandgreencoverwillincreaseadjacentproperty values.InastudysetinPerth,Panditetal.(2013)foundthatstreettreesadjacent toahouseproduced“positiveandsizableeffects”onthehouse’ssaleprice.11 As such,furtherstreettreeplanting,andbyextensionstreetscapeupgradesassuggested here,wouldliftpropertyvalues,increasedevelopmentfeasibilityandgiveresidents a“hip-pocket”reasontosupporttheirredevelopment.

Whilegoodconnectionstopublictransportremainimportant,carsareunavoidable fortheforeseeablefuture(Hagan 2017).Assuch,practitionersneedtodesignsome roadsectionswithinGODprecinctswithperpendicularparkingtoefficientlycontain

11 Theyconcludedthatthemarginalimplicitpriceofabroad-leavedtreeonthestreetvergewas aboutAU$17,000,whichcorrespondstoajustover4%increaseinthemedianvalueoftheproperty.

Fig.4.18 Upgradesurroundingkeystreetscapes:Whilegoodconnectionstotransitremainimportant,carsareunavoidableforthenearfuture.Assuch,planningteamsneedtodesignsomeroad sectionswithinGODprecinctswithperpendicularparkingtoefficientlycontainparkedcars

theparkingrequiredforresidentslivingathigherdensities.Thisavoidsthewasteof areainvolvedinincludingsubstantialcarparkingonprivatelots(Figs. 4.18, 4.19 and 4.20).Overtime,anautonomousCentralAreaTransitbusconnectingGODprecincts withmajorpublictransporthubs,andtechnologicaldevelopmentsincludingridesharingappsandcar-sharingarrangementscouldreducetheneedforthiscarparking.

4.2Conclusion

Thischapterhassetoutaprocessbywhichmultidisciplinaryteamscandeliver GODinAustraliansuburbancities.Theprocessremainshypotheticalasplanners anddevelopershavenotyetdeliveredanyGODspecificallyunderourmodel.We intendintime,however,todocumenttheurbanprojectswhichfollowthisprocessto

Fig.4.19 Upgradesurroundingkeystreetscapes:Upgradescouldincludeefficientright-angleparking,multi-functionalsharedvehicularandpedestrianspacesandanincreasednumberofstreettrees betterunderstandhowpractitionerscantweaktheprocessforimprovedoutcomes. Thenextchaptersummarizesthekeypointsofthebook,andsetsouttheimplications ofcontinuingwithourcurrentapproachestourbaninfill,consideringAustralia’s rapidlyincreasingpopulation.ItalsoreflectsonwhattheGODalternativecanoffer aspartofthisbroaderperspective.

Upgradesurroundingkeystreetscapes:Efficientright-angleparkingonvergescanreducethesubstantialarearequiredforcarswhencarparkingis providedonprivatelots.Thisallowspractitionersanddeveloperstodeliverefficientcourtyarddwellingsandmaintainmaturetrees

Fig.4.20

References

AtkinsM(2016)Boomersinboomtown:age-friendlyplanninginAustralia.In:BiermannS,Olaru D,PaulV(eds)Planningboomtownandbeyond.UWAPublishing,Perth,pp70–101

Ben-JosephE(2007)Changingtheresidentialstreetscene:adaptingthesharedstreet(Woonerf) concepttothesuburbanenvironment.JAmPlanAssoc61(4):504–515

BranderLM,KoetseMJ(2011)Thevalueofurbanopenspace:meta-analysesofcontingentvaluationandhedonicpricingresults.JEnvironManage92(10):2763–2773. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jenvman.2011.06.019

BrunnerJ,CozensP(2013)‘Wherehaveallthetreesgone?’Urbanconsolidationandthedemise ofurbanvegetation:acasestudyfromWesternAustralia.PlanPractRes28(2):231–255. https:// doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.733525

ByrneJ,SipeN(2010)Greenandopenspaceplanningforurbanconsolidation—areviewofthe literatureandbestpractice.In:Urbanresearchprogram,volissuespaper11.GriffithUniversity, Brisbane,Australia

ChengV,SteemersK(2010)Perceptionofurbandensity.In:MostafaviM,DohertyG(eds)Ecologicalurbanism.LarsMullerPublishers,Baden,pp476–481

CouttsA,TapperN(2017)Treesforacoolcity:guidelinesforoptimisedtreeplacement.Cooperative ResearchCentreforWaterSensitiveCities,Melbourne,Australia CromptonJL(2005)Theimpactofparksonpropertyvalues:empiricalevidencefromthepasttwo decadesintheUnitedStates.ManagLeis10(4):203–218 DepartmentofPlanning(2016)Apartmentdesign.DepartmentofPlanning,DepartmentofFinance, OfficeoftheGovernmentArchitect,WesternAustralianPlanningCommission,Perth FranckK,StevensQ(eds)(2007)Loosespace:possibilityanddiversityinurbanlife.Routledge, London

Giles-CortiB,BroomhallMH,KnuimanM,CollinsC,DouglasK,NgK,LangeA,DonovanRJ (2005)Increasingwalking:howimportantisdistanceto,attractiveness,andsizeofpublicopen space?AmJPrevMed28(2):169–176

Giles-CortiB,RyanK,FosterS(2012)IncreasingdensityinAustralia:maximisingthehealth benefitsandminimisingtheharm.NationalHeartFoundationofAustralia,Melbourne GladstoneL,SunY,TaplinJ(2016)Hypeorhope—canfuturetransporttechnologieseasecongestion?In:BiermannS,OlaruD,PaulV(eds)Planningboomtownandbeyond.UWAPublishing, Perth,pp574–591

GraceB(2013)Interview.Perth

GrahnP,StigsdotterUK(2010)Therelationbetweenperceivedsensorydimensionsofurbangreen spaceandstressrestoration.LandscUrbanPlan94(3):264–275

GuzmanCB(2017)Suburbanwetlandia.In:BergerA,KotkinJ,GuzmanC(eds)Infinitesuburbia. MIT,Boston,pp478–495

HaaseD,KabischS,HaaseA,AnderssonE,BanzhafE,BaróF,BrenckM,FischerLK,Frantzeskaki N,KabischN,KrellenbergK,KremerP,KronenbergJ,LarondelleN,MatheyJ,PauleitS,Ring I,RinkD,SchwarzN,WolffM(2017)Greeningcities—tobesociallyinclusive?Aboutthe allegedparadoxofsocietyandecologyincities.HabitatInt64:41–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. habitatint.2017.04.005

HaganS(2017)Metabolicsuburbsorthevirtueoflowdensities.In:BergerA,KotkinJ,Guzman C(eds)Infinitesuburbia.MIT,Boston,pp468–477

HansenR,OlafssonAS,vanderJagtAP,RallE,PauleitS(2019)Planningmultifunctionalgreen infrastructureforcompactcities:whatisthestateofpractice?EcolInd96:99–110

HerdK,Ivankovic-WatersJ(2017)Native:artanddesignwithAustralianplants.Thamesand Hudson,Australia

HjortM,MartinWM,StewartT,TroelsenJ(2018)Designofurbanpublicspaces:intentvs.reality. IntJEnvironResPublicHealth15(4):816

HuangS-CL(2010)Theimpactofpublicparticipationontheeffectivenessof,andusers’attachment to,urbanneighbourhoodparks.LandscRes35(5):551–562

JacobsJ(1962)ThedeathandlifeofgreatAmericancities.JonathonCape,London

JamesP,TzoulasK,AdamsM,BarberA,BoxJ,BreusteJ,ElmqvistT,FrithM,GordonC,Greening K(2009)TowardsanintegratedunderstandingofgreenspaceintheEuropeanbuiltenvironment. UrbanForUrbanGreen8(2):65–75

JimCY(2013)Sustainableurbangreeningstrategiesforcompactcitiesindevelopinganddeveloped economies.UrbanEcosyst16(4):741–761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-012-0268-x

JimCY,ShanX(2013)SocioeconomiceffectonperceptionofurbangreenspacesinGuangzhou, China.Cities31:123–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.06.017

KelletJ,RofeM(2009)Creatingactivecommunities:howcanopenandpublicspacesinurbanand suburbanenvironmentssupportactiveliving?InstituteforSustainableSystemsandTechnologies, UniversityofSouthAustralia,Adelaide

KellyJ-F,DoneganP(2015)Citylimits:whyAustraliancitiesarebrokenandhowwecanfixthem. MelbourneUniversityPress,Melbourne

KoY(2018)Treesandvegetationforresidentialenergyconservation:acriticalreviewforevidencebasedurbangreeninginNorthAmerica.UrbanForUrbanGreen34:318–335

LutzenhiserM,NetusilNR(2001)Theeffectofopenspacesonahome’ssaleprice.ContempEcon Policy19(3):291–298

NewmanP,BeatleyT,BoyerH(2009)Resilientcities.IslandPress,Washington NewtonP,MurrayS,WakefieldR,MurphyC,KhorL-A,MorganT(2011)Towardsanewdevelopmentmodelforhousingregenerationingreyfieldresidentialprecincts.AustralianHousingand UrbanResearchInstitute,Swinburne/Monash

NielsenAB,VanDenBoschM,MaruthaveeranS,vandenBoschCK(2014)Speciesrichnessin urbanparksanditsdrivers:areviewofempiricalevidence.UrbanEcosyst17(1):305–327

NordhH,HartigT,HagerhallC,FryG(2009)Componentsofsmallurbanparksthatpredictthe possibilityforrestoration.UrbanForUrbanGreen8(4):225–235

NordhH,ØstbyK(2013)Pocketparksforpeople—astudyofparkdesignanduse.UrbanFor UrbanGreen12(1):12–17

PanditR,PolyakovM,SadlerR(2014)Valuingpublicandprivateurbantreecanopycover.AustJ AgricResourEcon58(3):453–470

PanditR,PolyakovM,TapsuwamS,MoranT(2013)Theeffectofstreettreesonpropertyvalue inPerth,WesternAustralia.LandscUrbanPlan110:134–142

PanduroTE,VeieKL(2013)Classificationandvaluationofurbangreenspaces—ahedonichouse pricevaluation.LandscUrbanPlan120:119–128

PauliN,BoruffB(2016)Naturalenvironments,ecosystemservicesandgreeninfrastructure:planningforperth’s‘green’matrix.In:BiermannS,OlaruD,PaulV(eds)Planningboomtownand beyond.UWAPublishing,Perth,pp238–276

PowellR(2009)Leafandbranch—treesandtallshrubsofPerth.DepartmentofEnvironmentand Conservation,Perth,Australia

Pracsys(2012)Fremantletrafficbridge;economicandsocialbenefitassessment.Pracsys,Perth SanusiR,JohnstoneD,MayP,LivesleySJ(2017)Microclimatebenefitsthatdifferentstreettree speciesprovidetosidewalkpedestriansrelatetodifferencesinPlantAreaIndex.LandscUrban Plan157:502–511

SeddonG(2005)Theoldcountry—Australianlandscapes,plantsandpeople.CambridgePress, Melbourne,Australia

ShanX-Z(2012)Attitudeandwillingnesstowardparticipationindecision-makingofurbangreen spacesinChina.UrbanForUrbanGreen11(2):211–217

SmithCA,BilligNS(2012)Publicperceptionsofcompactsuburbiainprogressive,burgeoning communities.JUrbanDes17(3):313–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2012.683401

SugiyamaT,FrancisJ,MiddletonNJ,OwenN,Giles-CortiB(2010)Associationsbetweenrecreationalwalkingandattractiveness,size,andproximityofneighborhoodopenspaces.AmJPublic Health100(9):1752–1757

PlannersSuter(2011)Principlesandguidelines:bestpracticeopenspaceinhigherdensitydevelopmentsproject.CityofCharlesSturt,Adelaide

ThompsonCW(2002)Urbanopenspaceinthe21stcentury.LandscUrbanPlan60(2):59–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00059-2

WebbM(2013)Australiannativeplants:theKingsParkexperience.CSIROPublishing,Perth, Australia

WesternAustralianDepartmentofPlanning(2010)Directions2031andbeyond:metropolitan planningbeyondthehorizon.DepartmentofPlanning,Perth WoodL(2008)ActionforyoungAustraliansreport:parksandopenspaceforhealthandwellbeing ofchildrenandyoungpeople.TheAustralianResearchAllianceforChildrenandYouth,Canberra

Chapter5

Conclusion

Abstract Thischapterbrieflysummarizesthekeypointsofthebook.Wethendirect researcherstopotentiallyfertileareasforfutureresearch.Theseincludeasystematicevaluationofcommunitysentimentinrelationtourbaninfillstrategies,and thepotentialeffectsofemergingtransporttypesonTransit-OrientedDevelopment, amongstothers.Wethenspeculateonthepossiblesocietalandenvironmentalimplicationsofbothourcurrentstrategiesforurbandensificationandtheurbansprawl thattheyinadvertentlyprecipitate.WediscussthisinthecontextofcitiesinAustralia,andglobally,manyofwhichdemographersprojecttogrowsignificantlyin thistwenty-firstcentury.

Keywords Greenspace-OrientedDevelopment · Transit-OrientedDevelopment · Urbanconsolidation · Urbaninfill · Urbansprawl · Suburbanexpansion · Populationgrowth

5.1SummaryofKeyPoints

Inthisbook,weexaminedtheshortfallsofexclusivelyusingTransit-OrientedDevelopment(TOD)tosupporturbandensification,withafocusonAustraliancities. Wethenproposedacomplementaryapproach,Greenspace-OrientedDevelopment (GOD).

InChap. 2 ofthisbook,wereviewedTODandActivityCentreplanninginAustraliancities.WhiletheprinciplesofTODarewellestablished,theirapplicationin Australia,namely,inPerth,Adelaide,Melbourne,SydneyandSouthEastQueensland,hasdeliveredcomparativelylittleurbandensityco-locatedwithpublictransport (KellyandDonegan 2015;GoodmanandMoloney 2004;Burton 2017;Goodman 2017;Randolphetal. 2017).Thisiseventhoughsuchpolicieshavebeeninplace foraconsiderableamountoftime,insomecasessincethe1980s.Indeed,Australian citiescontinuetohavesomeofthelowestresidentialdensitiesintheworld(Hurley etal. 2017).

MuchoftheinfilldevelopmentinAustraliancitiesisstillcomparativelylowdensity,dispersed“backgroundinfill”,notneareffectivepublictransport.Thisform ofinfillcanhavedetrimentaleffectsonurbanforests,streetinterfacesandprivate

©TheAuthor(s),underexclusivelicensetoSpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG2020 J.BolleterandC.E.Ramalho, Greenspace-OrientedDevelopment, SpringerBriefsinGeography, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29601-8_5

openspaceprovision,allofwhichcannegativelyaffectlocalcommunitiesandhas ledtoapublicsullennessaroundinfilldevelopment(KellyandDonegan 2015). Thesepooroutcomesandtheresultingcommunitybacklashsubsequentlycurtailthe deliveryoffurtherinfillprojects.Chapter 2 concludedthatwehaveyettoacceptthe limitationsofTODstrategiesandlearnfrombothitssuccessesandfailures.However, readersshouldbemindfulthatachievingurbandensificationinsuburbancitiesisa difficultthing.Wedonotmeantodenigratethesincereeffortsofpractitionersto achieveTOD;rather,weseektopointouttheneedforcomplementaryalternatives toTODtoimprovethelikelihoodofcurtailingsprawl.

InChap. 3,wesetoutacomplementaryvisiontoachieveurbandensificationand reduceurbansprawlinAustraliancities,andwepresentedthetheoreticalunderpinningsofGOD.Atitsfoundation,aGODapproachbuildsuponthenowwellrecognizedimportanceofurbangreenspacesindeliveringanarrayofbenefitsto urbandwellers,andmostimportantly,inunderpinningapproachesforgreatersustainabilityandlivabilityincities.WediscussedhowGODweavestogetherthepositive aspectsofsuburbia(accesstoopenspaceandnature)andthoseofgoodquality medium-densityurbaninfill(publictransportaccessibility,housingaffordability, goodurbandesign,andimprovedpublicandculturalamenity).

InChap. 4,weshowedhowpractitionerscanputthatvisionintopractice,providingastep-by-stepmanualforimplementingGOD.Thisdirectinstructionisimportant becausegreeningsolutionsandurbandensificationarefundamentaltodealwiththe challengesofunprecedentedurbanandpopulationgrowth,aswellasclimatechange.

5.2FutureResearch

Thereisstillmuchforresearcherstodointheareaswehave“touchedon”inthisbook. AninitialresearchprojectshouldtestourGODprinciples—andthoseofTOD—in relationtocommunitysentimentinkeyareasofAustraliancities.Ingrapplingwith thethornyissueofcommunityresistance,plannersshouldbecarefultolistentothe “realpeople”ofAustralia’scitiestounderstandtheir“needs,wants,capabilitiesand fears”,ratherthanfallingintoatrapofunquestioninglyapplyinganapparentcureallplanningideology.Thishas(tosomedegree)occurredwithTOD—anapproach whichmighthaveconvincedplannersbuthasn’tnecessarilyconvincedcommunities. AsPatrickTroyremindus,pursuitof“architecturalandlifestylefashionsimported fromotherculturesthatarenotgroundedinthelivedexperienceoraspirationsof themajorityofAustralians”onlywastealotoftheplanners’timeandgovernment money(Troy 2004).Theenduringpopularityofthe“suburbandream”inAustralia andentrenchedcommunityresistancetourbaninfillatteststothis.Bruegmann(2017) reinforcestheimportanceofworkingwith,ratherthanagainsttheprevailingsensibilities:

Tomakearealcontributiontotheemergingurbanpattern,itwouldprobablyhelpforarchitects,plannersandpublicpolicymakerstomoveawayfromtheirfixationontheformsof thepast,traditionalaestheticnotions,andattemptstobuildcitiestoaccommodateexisting technologyandwaysoflife.

Citiesarehumansystemsfirstandbuiltenvironmentssecond.Toooftenplanning expertsusethe“builtenvironment”rubricinappropriatelytodirectdiscussionand urbanplanning(Gleesonetal. 2010).AsBrendanGleesonetal.remindsus,“contemplationofthebuiltenvironmentissurelycriticalbutshouldflowfrom,andnot precede,thisappreciation”(Gleesonetal. 2010).Webelieve,andthedatasupports, thatGODcouldbeanappropriate,yetadaptableexpressionofthisdemocraticwellspring;however,plannersandpolicymakersrequirein-depthresearchtoconfirm this.

Second,TODplanningshouldbesubjecttoafurtherfine-grainedanalysis. AccordingtothevariousStateandTerritorypoliciesacrossAustraliathereare343 ActivityCentresidentifiedforinfilldevelopmentnationwide(BolleterandWeller 2013).WhileinChap. 2 webrieflysetoutsomeoftheproblemstheseActivityCentreshavefacedinimplementation,whatplannersneedisanationalscalereviewto seewhetherplanningisachievingthepolicyobjectivesforActivityCentres.

Thirdly,emergingtrendsalsothreatenTODplanningandareworthyoffurther research.Aswediscussedbriefly,thepredictedwidespreadadoptionofFullyAutomatedVehicles(FAVs)willmeanthatco-locatingurbandensificationwithpublic transportislessofaconcern.Moreover,theWorldHealthOrganization’sprojectionsforepidemicsto“commonlyoccur”inthetwenty-firstcenturymaymeanthat high-densitylivingaboveandadjacenttocrowdedtrainstationsislessthanideal fromapopulationhealthperspective.Researchersshouldexplore,throughscenario planning,whatpotentialimpactsthesedriverscouldhaveforTODActivityCentre development.

Fourthly,oneofthemajorblockagestotransformationalurbanchangehasbeen alackofdesignvisionthatcancapturethepublicimaginationformoresustainable urbanfutures(DoveyandWoodcock 2014).Whileinthisbookwehavevisualized thepotentialofGODtoengageresidentsofAustralia’scapitalcitiesforanalternativeurbanfuture,thereismoreworkforresearchersanddesignerstodointhis space.Indeed,thereisalacunaofvisionarydesignandplanningworkinAustralia whichmeansthaturbanplanning(often)becomesdrivenbyideologyratherthan imagination(DoveyandWoodcock 2014).

Finally,GODproponentsneedtogettogetherandbuildsomeGODssothat researcherslikeourselvescancriticallypickthroughthemtodiscernsuccessesand failings.Moreover,inthisbookwehavescopedthepotentialofGODspecifically ingreyfield,middle-ringsuburbs.ResearcherscoulddirectfutureresearchtoconsideringhowplannerscouldapplyGODprinciplesinbothinnercityandgreenfield settings.

5.3Implications

Aswesetoutintheintroductorychapter,allAustralianStateandTerritorycapital citieshaveplanningpoliciesandtargetstoachieveurbandensification.TheachievementofthisplanningobjectiveiscrucialtomanagingAustralia’srapidlygrowing population.1 Atthesametime,Australiancitiesaregenerallynotmeetingtheirinfill targets,particularlyastheyrelatetoActivityCentres(BolleterandWeller 2013), whichisperpetuatingproblematicsprawlingcityforms.IfAustraliancitiescontinue nottomeetthesetargets,theirrapidpopulationgrowthwillmeantheysprawlin whatexpertsrecognizeasatypicallyunhealthy,costly,unsustainableandunproductivemanner.ThiswillbecomeaparticularissueasSydneyandMelbournedevelop intomega-citieswithpopulationsof10millionormore—withtheattendantlivabilityissuessuchascongestion,lackofhousingaffordability,pollutionanddeclining accesstonature—amongstothers(BolleterandWeller 2013)(Fig. 5.1).

Giventhisprojectedpopulationgrowth,ourcapacitytodeliverhighamenity, resilientandconnectedurbandensificationwillbeonechallengethatwilldefinethe

Fig.5.1 Thespecterofsprawl:IfAustraliancitiesdonotmeettheirinfilltargets,theirrapid populationgrowthwillmeantheycontinuetosprawlinwhatexpertsrecognizeasatypically unhealthy,costly,unsustainableandunproductivemanner. Source JulianBolleter

1 TheAustralianBureauofStatisticsproject,intheirSeriesAprojections,thatby2061Perth’s populationwillhavetripledto6.6million,Melbourne’sdoubledto9.8million,Sydney’sdoubled to8.9million,andSouthEastQueensland’sdoubledto5.6million(AustralianBureauofStatistics 2017).

livabilityandviabilityofAustraliancitiesinthiscentury.AsInfrastructureAustralia (2018)warnsus:

Ifwefailtoeffectivelyanticipateandrespondtogrowth,theresultswillbedecliningeconomicproductivity,increasingenvironmentalpressuresandamarkedreductionineachcity’s qualityoflife.

Insuchgenericstatements,wesometimesoverlookthatrealpeopleenduphaving tolivewiththeconsequencesofourplanning.Realpeoplewhosementalhealthis compromisedthroughtheeradicationofnatureinpoorlyconceivedinfill,realpeople whostruggletoaccessjobopportunitiesinfringesuburbsandareconsignedto interminablecommutes,realpeoplewhofindthemselvesisolatedinhigher-density TODsettingswithoutthesoftinfrastructureandpublicspacestoweaveacommunity andsenseofbelonging.Ofcourse,GODdoesnotprovidealltheanswerstothe challengesweface,butitcouldmakeasubstantialcontribution.

5.4Conclusion

Given“urbansprawl”currentlyoutpacespopulationgrowth,clearlythelureofsuburbiaremainsforsubstantialpopulationsaroundtheworld.Ifplannersaretoeffectively dealwiththeproblemsofsprawl,andtodeliverequitable,efficientandsustainable useoflandandnaturalresourcesthroughurbaninfilldevelopment,theyneedto deliverurbandensificationinamannerthatresonateswiththeleafygreenqualities ofsuburbiadesiredbymostpeople(atveryleastinAustralia).Thepresumptionin TODideologythatfutureresidentswilltradethebenefitsofnatureforthebenefitsof urbanityisamisconceptionthattheirproponentspromulgatetotheirowndetriment. Whatwerequireisanewdreamforurbandensification,befittingtheurban,societal andecologicalchallengesofthetwenty-firstcentury,andalignedwiththeongoing preferenceforsuburbanlivingnearnature.

Asthisbookattests,webelievethatGODanditssuggestedwell-designed higher-densityurbanprecinctssurroundinggoodqualitypublicgreenspacesoffera viable,sensibleapproachtotacklesprawlinAustralianandothercitiesworldwide withsimilarurbanizationpatterns.

GODhelpusall…

References

AustralianBureauofStatistics(2017)AustralianBureauofStatistics. http://www.abs.gov.au. Accessed17Oct2017

BolleterJ,WellerR(2013)MadeinAustralia:thefutureofAustraliancities.UniversityofWestern AustraliaPublishing,Perth

BruegmannR(2017)Theanti-suburbancrusade.In:BergerA,KotkinJ,GuzmanC(eds)Infinite suburbia.MIT,Boston,pp26–37

BurtonP(2017)SouthEastQueensland:changeandcontinuityinplanning.In:HamnettS,Freestone R(eds)PlanningmetropolitanAustralia.Routledge,pp156–177

DoveyK,WoodcockI(2014)IntensifyingMelbourne:transit-orientedurbandesignforresilient urbanfutures.MelbourneSchoolofDesign,TheUniversityofMelbourne,Melbourne GleesonB,DodsonJ,SpillerM(2010)MetropolitangovernancefortheAustraliancity:thecase forreform.IssuesPap12(1):1–26

GoodmanR(2017)Melbourne:growingpainsfortheliveablecity.In:HamnettS,FreestoneR (eds)PlanningmetropolitanAustralia.Routledge,pp59–83

GoodmanR,MoloneyS(2004)ActivitycentreplanninginMelbournerevisited.AustPlan41(2) HurleyJ,TaylorE,DodsonJ(2017)Whyhasurbanconsolidationbeensodifficult.In:SipeN, VellaK(eds)TheRoutledgehandbookofAustralianurbanandregionalplanning,pp123–135 InfrastructureAustralia(2018)Futurecities:planningforourgrowingpopulation(summaryreport). AustralianGovernment,Canberra

KellyJ-F,DoneganP(2015)Citylimits:whyAustraliancitiesarebrokenandhowwecanfixthem. MelbourneUniversityPress,Melbourne RandolphB,FreestoneR,BunkerR(2017)Sydney:growth,globalizationandgovernance.In: HamnettS,FreestoneR(eds)PlanningmetropolitanAustralia.Routledge,pp84–108 TroyP(2004)Savingourcitieswithsuburbs.In:SchultzJ(ed)Griffithreview:dreamsofland. GriffithUniversity,Brisbane