2020_Green dream examining the barriers to an innovative structure plan

Australian Planner

ISSN: 0729-3682 (Print) 2150-6841 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rapl20

Green dream: examining the barriers to an innovative stormwater and public open space structure plan on Perth’s

suburban fringe

Julian Alexander Bolleter

To cite this article: Julian Alexander Bolleter (2020): Green dream: examining the barriers to an innovative stormwater and public open space structure plan on Perth’s suburban fringe, Australian Planner, DOI: 10.1080/07293682.2020.1739090

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2020.1739090

Published online: 26 Mar 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rapl20

Greendream:examiningthebarrierstoaninnovativestormwaterandpublic openspacestructureplanonPerth’ssuburbanfringe

JulianAlexanderBolleter

AustralianUrbanDesignResearchCentre,UniversityofWesternAustralia,Perth,Australia

ABSTRACT

TheWungongLandscapeStructurePlan(LSP),currentlyunderconstructiononthefringesof Perth,embodiesanumberofinnovationswithrespecttoPublicOpenSpace(POS)provision. Theseincludethepropositionofaholistic,interconnectedPOSsystemthattranscends individualpropertyownership,anintegratedPOSandstormwatermanagementsystem,and theuseofaPOSsystemastheprimaryguidelinesfordevelopment.Therehasbeen significantresistancetotheseinnovationsfromwithintheurbandesignandplanning disciplines,thelanddevelopmentindustry,andfromregulatorybodies.Thispaperexamines thesevariousbarrierstoimplementationtoinformfuturesuburbanprojectsthatattempt relatedinnovations.

Introduction

TheAustralianBureauofStatistics(ABS)projectthat Perth’spopulationwillincreasefrom1.9to4.9million by2066(2017).GivenPerthgenerallystrugglesto achieveits47%targetforinfilldevelopment(Bolleter 2016);thispopulationgrowthislikelytoresultin furtherwavesofsuburbanexpansion.OnPerth’ s southeastandnortheastdevelopmentfront,landdevelopersaredeliveringnewsuburbandevelopmentson lowlying,geomorphic(groundwater-dependent)wetlands(Figure1)(Singhetal. 2012,6).

TheWungongproject

The ‘Wungong’ projectisemblematicofthissituation. Theprojectencompassesanareaofover1400hectares oflow-lyinglandonPerth’ssouth-easterndevelopmentfrontandplannersprojectthatuponcompletion itwillyield16,000compacthomes,withatotalpopulationof40,000people(Wood-Gush 2008,8).An innovativePublicOpenSpace(POS)system,integrated withacomprehensivestormwatermanagementsystem,structurestheoverallsuburbanform(Weller 2008,258)whichactstoaccommodatethehigh groundwatersituation.

TheoriginsoftheWungongLandscapeStructure Plan(LSP),inpart,derivefroma2004provocationby thethenclient,TheArmadaleRedevelopmentAuthority (ARA),1 tothedesignteam.TheUniversityofWestern Australialandscapearchitectureprogram,foraconcept LSP ‘asifthelandscapereallymattered’ (BrettWoodGushinWeller 2009,239).TheLSPwasproducedby ateamofover60consultants – representing38different

ARTICLEHISTORY

Received1September2017

Accepted3March2020

KEYWORDS

Watersensitiveurbandesign; Wungong;greenfield development;geomorphic wetlands;NewUrbanism

organisations – whospentthreeyears(2004–2007) testingitsconfigurationandrefiningitsideas(Weller 2008,257).Itremainstheoverarchingplanusedby theMetropolitanRedevelopmentAuthority(MRA)for ‘guiding’ thedevelopmentoftheWungongproject area(projectdirector).

ControversyabouttheWungongproject

In2007theWungongLSPreceivedthePlanningInstituteofAustralia’ s ‘President’sAwardforPlanning Excellence’ andthe ‘PlanningExcellenceAward’ underthecategoryof ‘EnvironmentalPlanningor Conservation’ (Ellis 2010,3)andsubsequentlythe LSPwaspublishedinAustralianPlannerin2008 (Wood-Gush).Atthetime,theprojectwasalsothe onlysuburbandevelopmentinAustraliatobeoffered fundingunderthethenFederalGovernment’ s ‘Water SmartAustraliaprogram’ (Wood-Gush 2008,8).Perhapsjustifiablygiventheawardsreceived,Brett Wood-GushfromtheLSPdesignteam,describedthe projectashavingadepthofinnovationthatis ‘truly astounding’ andanoverall ‘modelofdevelopment thatisexceptional’ (Wood-Gush 2008,8).However, subsequentlyinanon-mandatory2010peer-review theprojecthasbeenregardedas ‘impractical’ (Jones etal. 2010,2), ‘concerning’ (Jonesetal. 2010,2),a ‘deeply flawed vision’ (Burrell 2010,1)andinanother forum,a ‘disaster’ byapastWesternAustralianPresidentoftheUrbanDevelopmentInstituteofAustralia (UDIA).Certainly,theprojecthaselicitedstrongreactionswithintheWesternAustralianplanningandland developmentcommunities.Inthispaper,weseekto understandtheresistancetotheWungongLSP,soto

Figure1. Manynewsuburbs,onthesouth-eastandnorth-eastdevelopmentfrontareinmanycasesbeingdevelopedonlandwith isgeomorphic(groundwaterdependent)wetlands.

developmitigationstrategiesthatplannerscan utiliseinfutureurbanprojectsattemptingsimilar innovations.

TheWungongLSPprinciples

TheWungongLSPembodiesWaterSensitiveUrban Design(WSUD)inthatitattemptstointegrateurban development ‘withthemanagement,protectionand conservationoftheurbanwatercycle’,inturnensuring thaturbanwatermanagementis ‘sensitivetonatural hydrologicalandecologicalprocesses’ (Wong 2006, 214).TheWungongLSPcontainstwoprincipleinnovationsthatwesetoutinthefollowingsection.

AnintegratedandholisticPOSandstormwater system

The ‘environment’ oftheWungongprojectareaconsistsofrelatively flat,degradedagriculturallandwith highclaycontentsoils.Thecombinationofclaysoils, waterenteringthesitefromthenearbyescarpment, andpoordrainagemeansthelandexperiencesshort periodsofseasonalsurfaceinundation(BrettWoodGushinWeller 2009,243)(Figure2).Inresponseto thischallenginghydrologicalsituation,theWungong LSPproposesa ‘POSsystemintegratedwithacomprehensivestormwatermanagementsystemasalegible

infrastructuralcomponentoftheproject’ system (Weller 2008,258)(Figures3 and 4).Theplanners intendthestormwatermanagementsystemwillreceive andcleansestormwaterfromthefuturesuburbansubdivisionsbeforeitentersthenearbyWungongRiver (Sacketal. 2004,3).

Atthesametime,thePOSsystemwhichformsa holisticsystemacrossthewholedevelopmentarea, encouragesactivemodesoftransport,conveyswildlife, protectsandconnectsAboriginalheritagesites(WoodGush 2008,10),andprovidesthe ‘otherwiserawsuburbandevelopmentwithadistinctiveandbindingcharacteronascalecommensuratewiththedevelopment’ (Weller 2009,251).AsthenDirectoroftheArmadale RedevelopmentAuthority(ARA)explainsofthelinear network, ‘wevisualised flyingoverPerthat30,000feet andbeingabletoseeWungongandseeingthestraight linesofthelinearPOS – likeLouistheFourteenthcomingtoPerth …’ (projectdirector).Thelinearnetwork POSitselfconsistsofLivingStreams,ParkAvenuesand CommunityParks – whichadjointheLivingStreams (Wood-Gush 2008,10).

TheLivingStreamsareessentiallyreconfigured opendrainsthatarealegacyofthesite’sagricultural pastandpoordrainage(Figure5).Giventhatsuch drainsaretypicallyweed-infestedandpolluted(Pen andMajer 1994,194)theWungongLSPproposes thattherouteofthesedrainsissubstantiallyaltered

Figure2. The ‘environment’ oftheWungongprojectareaconsistsofrelatively flat,degradedagriculturallandwithhighclaycontentsoils.Thecombinationofclaysoils,waterenteringthesitefromthenearbyDarlingescarpment,andpoordrainagemeansthe landexperiencesshortperiodsofseasonalsurfaceinundation.

Figure3. TheWungongLandscapeStructurePlan(LSP).

tomakethemconformtoafairlyrigidorthogonal structure,anddeliverrecreationalandecological functions.

ComplementingtheLivingStreamsintheLSPisa sequenceoflinearswales,referredtoasParkAvenues, framedbyavenuesof(typically)Eucalyptustrees (Figure6).TheplannersintendtheParkAvenues willfunctionasameetingplace,encouragewalking (BrettWood-GushinWeller 2009,243),offervistas oftheDarlingEscarpmenttotheeast,mitigatethe harsheasterlywinds,funnelcoolingseabreezes, functionashabitatcorridors,andretainthe

Figure4. TheWungongLSPproposesaPOSmatrixintegratedwithacomprehensivestormwatermanagementsystem.

Figure5. TheLivingStreamsareessentiallyretrofittedopendrainswhicharealegacyofthesite’sagriculturalpastandpoordrainage.TheWungongLSPproposesthattherouteofthesedrainsissubstantiallyalteredtomakethemconformtoagenerally orthogonalstructure,andtobecomemultifunctionalwithrespecttodeliveringrecreationalandecologicalfunctions.

Figure6. ComplementingtheLivingStreamsintheLSPisasequenceoflinearswales,referredtoasParkAvenues,leadingtothe WungongRiverframedbyavenuesof(typically)Eucalyptus.TheParkAvenuesareintendedtofunctionasameetingplacefor nearbyresidents,allowforextensivepedestrianaccessthroughoutthedevelopment(ImagecourtesyofRichardWeller).

naturalcharacteroftherurallandscape(Sacketal. 2004,4).

AlongeachParkAvenueislocateda0.6hasquare openspace(onaverage)attheheartofeachneighbourhood.Inadditiontostormwaterretention,thesespaces alsofunctiontofacilitateactiveplayspaceareasand helpcaterfortherecreationalneedsofthesurrounding neighbourhood(MetropolitanRedevelopmentAuthority 2012b,3).

APOSsystemastheprimaryguidelinesfor development

Morethanmerely ‘ornamental’ POS,thatcharacterises manysuburbandevelopmentsinPerth,theWungong LSPintegratedPOSandstormwatermanagementsystemfunctionsastheprimaryguidelinesforsubsequent development(Weller 2008,258).Inthissense,itactsas astructuringdevicethatinformsthelocationof ActivityCentresanddenserurbanareas,primaryand highschoolsaswellasinformingthegeometryofthe roadnetworkwhichrunsbothparallelandperpendiculartothelinearPOSnetwork(Weller 2009,251). ItisthroughthisstructuringroleoflinearPOSthat theWungongprojectarguablyprovidesanexample ofthebroadeningoflandscapearchitecture’ s fieldof influenceintoinfrastructuralandcityplanningbased issues(Weller 2006b,67).

InconventionalPerth,BusinessAsUsual(BAU) suburbandevelopment,developersrazesiteendemic vegetationandtopographytocreatea flatsiteforthe deploymentofstandardisedprojecthomes.Inrelation totheeffectivetabularasathatresults,developersoften

employlandscapearchitecturetoreconnectthetransformedsiteto ‘place’.AsRichardWellerexplains: Indeferencetoa ‘senseofplace’,thelandscapethatthe newsuburbalmostinevitablyerasesisreturnedtothe newdevelopmentasthematicveneer,asymbolicpasticheorhaplessremnantofitsformerself.(Weller 2008,247)

InpartasaresponsetothissituationtheWungong LSP,seeksthecreationofanewsuburbanmodel ‘whereenvironmentandurbandevelopmentexistsin aninterwovensystem’ (Wood-Gush 2008,11),andin whichthelandscapeitselfcouldgenuinelyinformthe characterandstructureofthesuburbandevelopment (Sacketal. 2004,1).

Method

Researchquestion

Inordertoaddresstheimpedimentstheplanningteam encounteredindeliveringtheinnovativeWungong LSP,andsothatfutureplannerslearnlessonsfrom thisexperience,wehavestructuredthisresearch paperwithreferencetothefollowingresearchquestion: Whathavebeenthedominantbarriers,fromplanning thediscipline,developersandregulatorstothe implementationoftheproposedPublicOpenSpace innovationsoftheWungongLSP?

Subsequentlyweposethequestion: Whatmitigatingstrategiescouldfutureplanners adopttomitigatethebarrierstosuchPublicOpen Spaceinnovations?

Toexploretheseresearchquestionswehaveadopteda ‘casestudy’ analysismethodology.Acasestudyanalysisisanempiricalinquirythatinvestigatesaproject withinitsreal-lifecontext(GroatandWang 2002, 346).Inthisrespect,thepaperinvestigatesthepracticalityofimplementingthefollowingkeyprinciples proposedintheWungongLSP:

. CreateaholisticsystemofPOSthattranscendsindividualpropertyownership(Weller 2008,258).

. CreateanintegratedPOSsystemandstormwater managementsystem(Weller 2008,258).

. AssertthePOSsystemastheprimaryguidelinesfor subsequentdevelopment(Weller 2008,258).

WehavebasedourcasestudyanalysisonacomprehensivereviewoftheliteratureconcerningtheWungongLSP(Jonesetal. 2010;Burrell 2010; MetropolitanRedevelopmentAuthority 2012a, 2012b; Ellis 2010;ArmadaleRedevelopmentAuthority, n.d.) andeightface-to-face,semi-structuredinterviews (usingpre-determinedquestionsandaskingadditional questionsbasedontheresponses).Weaskedintervieweesabouttheiropinionsontheobstaclestotheprinciples,andtheirrecommendationsforstrategiesto mitigatethesebarriers.Acertainamountof ‘spontaneityanduncertaintycharacterisesthismethod’ (CarringtonandMarshall 2008,120) – nonethelesswe coveredallquestionswithinterviewees.

Sampling

Weinitiallyemployedpurposivesampling(Kelleyetal. 2003,264)toselectourinterviewees.Intervieweeswe selectedincludedcivilengineers,urbandesigners,landscapearchitects,andhydrologistswhowereinvolvedin theplanninganddeliveryofintegratedstormwater/ POSprojectsatWungong.Wealsointerviewedstate governmentregulatorswhooversawthedesignand operationofstormwatersystemsintegratedwith POS,andredevelopmentauthoritydirectorsandprojectdirectorswhohavebeen,atvariouspoints,responsibleforthedeliveryoftheWungongLSP.We recruitedrespondentsinitiallythroughtherepresentativesofgovernmentdepartmentsonourresearch centre’sboard.Subsequentlyweusedasnowballing samplingmethodi.e.,aswesurveyedoneindividual weinvitedthemrecommendothersforustosurvey.

Reviewofinterviewtranscripts

Theinterviewslastedbetween30and60minandwe recordedandtranscribedthemverbatimaftercompletion,yieldinghundredsofpagesoftext.Wethen subjectedthetranscriptstomanualtextualandinterpretativeanalysistoidentifykeythemes.Subsequently, weremovedallidentifyinginformationregarding

participants – otherthantheirprofessionalroles

withouraimtoextractthekeythemesfromthe responses.

Results

Wehavesetouttheresultsoftheinterviewandliteraturereviewprocessinthefollowingtables. Figure7 identifiesthebarrierstotheinnovativeprinciplesproposedintheWungongLSPfromtheperspectiveof Perth’surbandesignandplanningdisciplines,the landdevelopmentindustry,andregulatorybodies. Figure8 setsoutseveralmitigatingstrategiesthatplannerscouldadopttomitigatetheaforementionedbarriersinfutureprojectsattemptingsimilarinnovations inWSUDPOSsystems.

Discussion

TheresistancetotheWungongLSPis,tovarying degreesideological,technical,economicandinstitutional – aformidablecombinationoffactorsfor anyoneprojecttoovercome.TheresistancetheLSP, receivedparticularlyinthe2008–2010period,also reflectedanumberofmacropoliticalandeconomic factorsthatareofimportance.Inpart,theresistance totheprojectreflectedachangeofstategovernment in2008andthelossofaplanningminister,Alannah McTiernan,whohadbeensupportiveoftheWungong LSP(projectdirector).Itisunderstoodthatuponthe changeofstategovernmentthedevelopersinvolved indeliveringtheWungongLSP,sawanopportunity to ‘venttheirspleen’ (projectdirector),andcomplained toJohnDaythethennewplanningminister.Asanexprojectdirectorexplains ‘ifthedevelopershadcomplainedlikethattoAlannahMcTiernanshewould havesaid, “there’sthedoor” howeverunfortunately JohnDaydidn’thaveahistoryofthearea …’ andhe hadthe ‘developersinhisear’ (projectdirector).2 Perhapsbecauseofthisthenewplanningminister ‘setup anenquiryintoWungong,andmanyofthecriticisms oftheprojectfromwithintheplanningdiscipline formedpartofthisenquiry.Inpart,asaresultan MRAbasedimplementationteamreplacedthelarge LSPteam – withoutalmostany ‘continuity’ between theseteams(projectdirector).

Moreover,developerledresistancetotheWungong LSPalsoreflectedthatby2010theeconomiccontext hadtightenedup,incomparisonto2004–2007when theLSPwasconceived,andassuchdeveloperswere increasinglylessinclinedtotakerisksbydeviating fromBAUdevelopmentmodels.

Resistancefromwithintheplanningdisciplines Arguably,agendasideologicalorotherwisedrovesome ofthenegativeassessmentsoftheWungongLSPfrom

Figure7. ThissummarytablesetsouttheWungongLSPinnovationsandthereasonstheyhavebeenresistedbytheplanning disciplines,developersandregulatorybodies.

Figure8. Thissummarytablesetsoutthemitigatingstrategiesthatplannerscoulddeployinfutureurbanprojectsattempting WSUDPOSinnovations.

withintheplanningdisciplines.3 Indeedthe ‘adversarial’ 2010peerreviewoftheWungongLSP(Ellis 2010, 2),whichoccurredsubsequenttochangeofstategovernment,involvedsomeplannerswhohadpreviously beeninvolvedinauthoringPerth’sNewUrbanism inspiredLiveableNeighbourhoods’ code.Thiswasat atimewhenthesuburbandevelopmentindustrywas justadoptingtheLiveableNeighbourhoodsandas such,itsauthorscouldhavebeensensitivetoperceived challengestothismodel,suchastheWungongLSP.In particular,theLiveableNeighbourhood’scodeaspires toemulateNewUrbanism’savocationofcompact, pedestrian-friendlyneighbourhoods(Congressof

NewUrbanism 2016)andthecreationofsmaller, moreaccessibleneighbourhoodparks(WestAustralianPlanningCommission,&DepartmentofPlanning 2015)(Figure9).

AcademicRichardWeller – whohaspublished widelyconcerningLandscapeUrbanism4 (Weller 2006a, 2006a, 2008, 2009) – initiallyledtheplanning oftheproject.Indeed,theLSPembodiestheLandscape Urbanismnotionthatthelandscapecanfunctionasa ‘templateforurbanism’ (Weller 2006b,67) – expressed intheWungongLSPasalinearPOSsystemwhichacts asthe ‘primaryguidelinesforurbandevelopment’ (Weller 2008,258).Someoftheresistanceemanating

Figure9. TheLiveableNeighbourhoods/NewUrbanisminspiredsuburbofButleronPerth’snortherndevelopmentcorridorhasa typicallydisconnectedPOSsystem,thestructureofwhichcontrastswiththeWungongLSP’sholisticandinterconnectingPOS system.

fromwithinthePerthplanningcommunitywepartly attributetoageneralcultureofantagonismbetween theNewUrbanismandLandscapeUrbanismcamps, tensionsthatAndresDuanysubsequentlyexpressed inthebook ‘Landscapeurbanismanditsdiscontents’ (DuanyandTalen 2013a).

ResistancetoaholisticPOSsystem

ThecritiquesoftheWungongLSPexpressedinthis reviewwerenumerousandtendedtocentreonthe holistic,linearPOSsystem.Inparticularthereview regardedthattheWungongLSPproposedan ‘inequitable’ distributionofopenspace(Burrell 2010,1),inadequateprovisionofappropriatelyuseablepublicopenspace,andanover-provisionof narrowlinearopenspacesandconsequentoverrelianceonschoolsprovidingsharedsports fields (Jonesetal. 2010,3).

ThecritiqueoftheWungongLSP’slinearPOS systempossiblystemsfromalong-standingambivalencebyNewUrbanismtosuchmodels.Indeedthe leaderoftheNewUrbanistmovement,Andrés Duany,hasbeenparticularlydismissiveoflinear parks,describingthemas ‘anextendedvenuefor crime’,andasareofferingofthe ‘systemofgreen asabuffer ’ whichinhisopinionwillperpetuate theproblematicdispersivetendenciesofthemodern

city(InKullmann 2011,72).Inthisreadinglinear POSisregardedas ‘formsofconveyance,zonesof transitorycontent’ andarenotintentional, ‘well articulateddesignprojects’ (Smith 1999,77).Perhaps inthe2010WungongLSPpeerreviewsuchsentimentstendedtobeexpressedthroughacritiquein whichWungong’slinearPOSsysteminadequately provideduseablePOS(Jonesetal. 2010,3,4).

ResistancetoanintegratedPOSandstormwater system

WhileNewUrbanismisgenerallyambivalentabout therecreationaluseabilityoflinearPOS,theuseof hydrologytoinformthedesignofPOSandrelated urbanformalsoappearedtoantagonisethereview panel.Theuseofhydrologicalsystemstoinform POSandurbanfabricisreferredtoinNewUrbanist literatureascomprisingthe ‘hydrologicalprivilege’ (DuanyandTalen 2013b,7)inwhichhydrologyis seentobeelevatedaboveallother,moresensible, structuringdevicesforbothPOSandurbanfabric – forexamplestreetnetworks,andurbanform. Arguably,NewUrbanism’sbroadlackofregardfor hydrologicalfunctionhasfoundexpressioninthe WungongLSPreviewthroughcriticismsquestioning whethertheParkAvenuesandLivingStreamsactuallyconstitutePOS.Indeedtheauthorsofthe

WungongLSPpeerreviewconcludedthattherewas noneedforhydrologicalandrecreationalfunctions tobeso ‘tightlybound’ together(Jonesetal. 2010, 7),andthatplannersshouldproviderecreational amenityoutsideofthedrainagenetwork.5 Thisis inpartbecauseinperiodsofhighrainfall,areasof theLivingStreamsbecomewaterlogged,andas such,someviewthemasunusable(landscapearchitect).Somelocalgovernmentstaff anecdotallyshares theview, firstexpressedbythepeerreviewpanel, thattheLivingStreamsandParkAvenuesarenot functionalandleadingtoadeprivationofrecreationalopportunity – particularlyfromanactive recreationperspective.

ResistancetoaPOSsystemastheprimary guidelinesfordevelopment

The2010reviewersoftheWungongmasterplanalso heavilycritiquedthePOSnetworkgenerated,urban formmodelswhichencapsulatedtheLandscapeUrbanistnotionoflandscapeoperatingasa ‘structuring medium’ (DuanyandTalen 2013b,4).Asthereview proclaimsthescheme ‘erroneouslyenforcesadeeply flawedvisionbasedonlandscapeelements’ (Burrell 2010,1).SuchcritiqueresonateswiththeNewUrbanistsentimentthatLandscapeUrbanismcanmake ‘ a bucoliccontributiontocivicspace’ butis ‘ultimately incapableofdeliveringordinaryurbanfabric’ (Duany andTalen 2013b,12).Thereviewpanelregardedthe failuresoftheproposedurbanfabricasnumerous. Firstly,itwasexpressedthattheWungongLSP lackedamixed-usetowncentrewithdiversityofcharacterbothofwhichitwasconsidered ‘wouldnormally underpinsuchalargestructureplanningarea’ (Burrell 2010,5).Moreoveritwasregardedthatthelocation anddistributionofActivityCentres ‘doesnotbestcapitaliseonthemovementeconomyormayhave inadequatecatchmentstobefeasible’ (Jonesetal. 2010,4)perhapsreflectingthatthelocationofsuch centreswasdeveloped,inpart,inrelationtothePOS system.Reviewersregardedtherearealsounrealistic expectationsfordeveloperstodeliversubstantial amountsofhigherdensityhousingaroundverysmall localneighbourhoodcentres(Jonesetal. 2010,4). Moreover,alackofemploymentstrategywasregarded asaprojectfailing – asareviewerconcludedthemaster planappearssilentonmattersofjobcreation(Burrell 2010,1),againperhapsgivenitsovertlandscape focus.Finally,itwasalsoconsideredthatduetotheprivilegingofhydrologicalsystemsthestreetnetworkis ‘largelypredeterminedbythealignmentofthePark Avenues’ (Sacketal. 2004,26)andassuchhasbeen lockedintoaninter-cardinalgeometryandassuch limitspotentialforsolar-efficientlayout(Jonesetal. 2010,3).Whiletheremaybeanelementoftruthin suchcriticisms,theyalsonodoubtreflect,adeeper ambivalencethatlandscapeintheformofa

multifunctionalPOSsystemcanstructureurbanism that ‘works’ onamultitudeofnon-landscapelevels.

Resistancefromlanddevelopers

Thelanddevelopmentcommunityfurtheredresistance totheWungongLSP.Subsequenttothe2008changeof stategovernment,theyidentifiedseveralissuesthat theybelievedthreatenedtheeconomicviabilityof development.6 Despitetheambitionsofprojectplannerstodelivera ‘grandvision’,developersbelieved thattheholisticPOSstructureoftheLSPposedvarious deliveryproblemsthroughthedetailedplanningand constructionphases.Thiswasbecausethesephases sawtheWungongprojectareadividedinto13cells, witheachcellhavingatypicallyseparatedeveloper andrequiringitsownstructureplan(Metropolitan RedevelopmentAuthority 2012a,11)(Figure10).

Resistancetoaholistic,integratedPOSand stormwatersystem

Partlybecauseofthisfragmentedframework,theLSP’ s holisticPOSandstormwatersystemposesissuesin relationtothecoordinationofdrainagenetworks fromonecelltothenext.Asaprojectengineer explains:

Inanarealikethis,whichisessentiallyonebigdrainagecatchment,thesystembreaksdownwhenyou cutitupintoprecincts – youcannotdoanoverarchingdesignandretainit.Assoonassomeonestartssaying ‘weneeda flatlotthenyouhavechangedthelevel oftheroads,you’vechangedthedrainagesystemand itallstartsunravellingbitbybit .(civilengineer)

MoreoveraprojecthydrologistontheWungongprojectattestswhen ‘adevelopergoesaheadhereand setsalevelforthedrainagesystem,thepeople upstreamcantconnecttheirsysteminwithouthaving fourmetresof(sand) fill … assuchthereisaperceived ‘disconnectbetweenwhatwasthevisiontoactually what’sthedesign’ (hydrologist).Inthisrespect,there isaperceptionamongstthedevelopersthattheLSP compoundedsuchissues.Aslandscapearchitects whohavebeenresponsibleforthedetaileddesignof LivingStreamsinWungongexplain:

TheParkAvenuesandLivingStreamsdidnotreally alignwithwhatwasontheground – thelevels,the sitegeology,thehydrology,andwhatdrainswere thereandwheretheywerelocated Formalising themintocorridorsreflectedalackofconnection betweenthescienceandthedesignprinciples.(landscapearchitect)

Accordingtothiscritique,while ‘landscapeissues’ , ostensiblydrivetheLSPitactuallyofferslimitedrecognitionofthetopographicalconstraintsoftheredevelopmentsite.Indeed,theprojectreviewersassertthat this ‘limitedrecognition’ intheprojectplanningled

Figure10. AcomparativeanalysisofthestructureplansforprecinctsC,D,E,JandKandtheLSPrevealsthattheParkAvenue geometrieshavebecomesmuchmoreconvolutedandthestreetnetworkshavedeviatefromtheorthogonalityoftheLSP.Indeed thesenseof ‘LouistheFourteenthcomingtoPerth …’ hasbeengreatlydiminishedintheapprovedstructureplans.Moreoverthe areasof ‘urbandensity’ proposedintheLSPappeartohavebeenreduced,particularlyincellCandJ.

Figure11. LikemostsuburbandevelopmentsinPerth’sgeomorphicwetlandstheWungongprojecthasrequiredsubstantial amountsof fill.Thishasbeenexacerbatedbythe fillrequiredtoensuretheLivingStreams flowinthecorrectdirections.

Figure12. The2010WungongLSPreviewersregardedthattheLivingStreamsshouldhavefollowedthealignmentoftheexisting drains,asrealignmentofexistingwaterwaystheybelieved ‘couldseverelycompromisetheintegrityoftheurbandesigntorespond toitsnaturalterrain’ andinturnlimitmorecosteffectivesolutions.

totheLivingStreamsandParkAvenues ‘drainage ostensiblygoingup-hillinsomecases’,whichinturn leadto ‘unrealistic fillrequirements’ (Jonesetal. 2010,2)(Figure11).Toeasesuchissuesreviewers felttheLivingStreamsshouldhavefollowedthealignmentoftheexistingdrains.Insteadthereviewersfelt thatimpositionoforthogonalLivingStreamsand ParkAvenues ‘severelycompromisedtheintegrityof theurbandesigntorespondtoitsnaturalterrain’ andbemorecost-effective(Jonesetal. 2010,7) (Figure12).

Compoundingsuchissues,someofthedevelopers alsofeltaggrievedbytheDeveloperContribution Scheme(DCS)setuptofundtheimplementationof aholistic,interconnectedPOSsystem – asopposed toaPOSself-containedwithinparticulardevelopment precincts.However,accordingtothe2010peerreview oftheLSP,theplanningteamleviedthesecosts ‘ on developerswithoutanexplanationofthepercentage ofuseofothersoutsidetheredevelopmentareaor theextenttowhichusersinonecellwouldtakeadvantageofthisinfrastructure’ (Jonesetal. 2010,10).Asa result ‘someofthedevelopersatWungong,whoare downnearthetipsite(precinctJ),feelliketheyhave beenlumpedwiththisDCSandtheygetnovalue outofit Theywanttoseethattheyaregettingare returnfortheircontributions’ (landscapearchitect)

Becauseofsuchreasons,andalsoduetothefactthat aDCSisnottypicallyemployedinaBAUsuburban developmentinPerth,thishasledtosignificantresistancefromdevelopers.Asanintervieweeexplains ‘while theruleswrittenuptocoverDCSsareclear,itdoesn’t getyoupastthepolitics.Thedevelopersdrivehardbargains …’ (civilengineer).

ResistancetoaPOSsystemastheprimary guidelinesfordevelopment

Whilethedevelopmentindustrytypicallyprovided resistancetotheWungongLSPbecauseofrequirementsforDCSs,coordinationandthe fillneedto makethestormwatersystemfunction,thedevelopers alsobelievedtheLSPoverlylimitedtheirabilityto adopttheirownstyleforeachprecinct.7 AsRichard Wellerexplains:

Whatirkedthevariousdevelopersandtheirdesign teamsmost,whentheyfoundtheyhadtoworkwith theoverarchingsystemoftheavenues,wasthatthey werenotfreetoshapetheplansoftheirsubdivisions astheynormallywould.Theyargued,somewhatironically,thattheavenueslimitedtheirabilitytocreatea distinctive ‘senseofplace’ fortheirparticularproject .(2009,253)

Asanex-projectdirectorexplainsthiswasparticularly anissuewithStockland,oneofthetwomajor

developersoftheproject: ‘Stockland,liketoputtheir ownstamponthings … theyhaveaformulaandhavingthesekindsofLivingStreamsandParkAvenuesdid notworkwiththeirformula’ (projectdirector).The developersconcernsaboutlimitationsonstylingtheir developmentswere,nodoubt,notalleviatedbythe LSPdesignteam’sassertionthat ‘theoverallcharacter andmarketabilityofWungongisthattheproject’ s identityisnottobeachievedthroughcosmeticstyling, butratherstructuralclarity’ (Sacketal. 2004,6)

Resistancefromregulatorybodies

WhiletheconstructionoftheWungongLSPisbeing overseenbytheMRA,andisanofficialdesignated redevelopmentareawhichisexcisedfromthenormal stateandlocalgovernmentapprovalprocessesandpolicies(Ellis 2010,18)thishasnotalwaysbeenenoughto preventresistancetotheprojectsimplementationat bothastateandlocalgovernmentlevel.

ResistancetoanintegratedPOSandstormwater system

OneoftheissuesthataPOSsystemwithoverlapping recreationalandhydrologicalfunctionscreatesisa longlistofregulatorybodieswhoarerequiredtogive approvals.Indeed,theMRAtotheDepartmentof Water(DoW),theWaterCorporation,8 theCityOf Armadale(whowilleventuallyassumeresponsibility forthemaintenanceoftheWungongproject),River andEstuaries,andtheDepartmentofParksandWildlifealloverseeandapprovedesignproposalsforWungong ’sLivingStreams.TheMRAarethemanaging agency,chargedwiththechallengingexerciseofsecuringtheseapprovals.Nonetheless,thiscausesissuesfor theconsultants.Aslandscapearchitectsengagedinthe Wungongprojectexplain:

Oneoftherealdifficultiesisthatwearenotencouragedtoengagedirectlywiththeagencies.MRAare meanttocoordinateandlookthrougheveryone’ s comments-ifthereareconflictingorirrelevantcommentstheyaremeantto filterthemout (However) whatthatdoesistoremoveyourabilitytotalkdirectly withtheagenciesandworkthroughcomments (landscapearchitect)

Theprobleminthissituationofoverlappinginterestsis that,whiletheCityofArmadale,theDoW,theMRA ‘haveallbeenprettygoodandhelpfulbutthat’ sa realdiversifiedofdesiredoutcomes, … wehavehada realhardtimeresolvingthoseconflicts’ (hydrologist). Thisprolongstheperiodrequiredfordesignand approvalssignificantly.Thisdelayhasfurther implications:

When(theapprovalprocess)isstretchedoutovertwo yearstheDoWchangetheirpolicyonwatertreatment,MRAreleaseanupdatetoaPOSpolicy,the localgovernmentchangewhatvegetationtypesthey

areaccepting,apolicycomesoutaboutbushfires, moreinformationisreleasedaboutcockatoohabitat treesandallthesethingschangealongtheway.(landscapearchitect)

Compoundingsuchissues,intervieweesregardedthe WaterCorporationitselfasanimpedimenttothe deliveryofmultifunctional,integratedstormwater andPOSmatrices.9 Asanex-projectdirectorforthe WungongLSPdescribes ‘WaterCorporation’ssole role – inrelationtodrains – istomovewater …“All wearerequiredtodoisthis” isastandardresponse’ whencomplexLivingStreammodelsweretabledfor approval(projectdirector).Moreover,asanintervieweeexplains:

YouhavemaindrainscontrolledbytheWaterCorporationwhohaveveryspecificrulesaboutwhat youcanputinthem,whatthelevelsmustbe,because alltheycareaboutismanagingthemainnetworkfrom ahydraulicperspectivetomakesurenobodygets flooded.Ifyouaretryingtodocleverthings – such asLivingStreams – youaregoingtohaveachallenge withtheWaterCorporation … (Indeed)theWater Corporation’sinitialstartingpointconcerningthe LivingStreamswas ‘ nowewon ’twearthisatall’ (civilengineer)

Otherissuespertainedtohow,untilrecently,Water Corporationmeasuredpeak flowratesatvariousintervalsalongaLivingStreamnetwork(landscapearchitect).Theeffectofthiswasdesignerswererequired tochoke flowsatvariouspointsalongLivingStream corridorsresultinginwaterloggedareasthatlimitthe useabilityofsuchareasfromarecreationperspective – somethingthatfuelscontroversyaboutwhetherLivingStreamsandParkAvenuesconstituteuseablePOS. Aslandscapearchitectsontheprojectexplain: ‘either youwanttohavetheusabilityoryouchokethe flows back – youcan ’thaveboth’ (landscapearchitect). Compoundingthiscomplexapprovalprocessfor achievingLivingStreamsisthatwhiletheMRAhas controlovertheWungongdevelopmentprocess,the localgovernment,theCityofArmadale,willeventually assumeresponsibilityformaintenanceandassuch have ‘ some ’ sayonwhatisconstructed(civilengineer). Nonetheless,theresponsibilitiesfortheongoingmaintenanceofmultifunctionalstormwaterandPOS matricesarenotclear.Asoneintervieweeexplains ‘ as soonasyouhavemultipleorganizationallinesdrawn overonebitoflandweseemtohavetroubledealing withit …’ (civilengineer).Thiscomplexityarises fromasituationinwhichLivingStreams ‘ can ’tjust bedoneinthedraincorridorwhichisfreeholdland ownedbyWaterCorporation,youneedlandeither sidesoyouneedtoreachalonger-termmanagement, maintenanceandliabilityagreementneedstobe reachedwiththelocalauthority.Whomowsthe lawn,whomaintainsthebikepathneedstobeworked out’ (governmentrepresentative)allofwhichaddsto

thecomplexityandtimerequiredforimplementing LivingStreamorientatedPOS.

Mitigatingresistancefromtheplanning discipline

Thefollowingsectiondiscusseshowplannerscould –seekto – mitigatetheresistancefromwithintheplanningdiscipline,developmentcommunityandregulatorybodiestoPOSinnovations.

ThecritiqueoftheWungongLSPfrombothwithin theplanningdisciplineanddevelopmentcommunity indicatesthatwithsubstantial,complexPOSdriven projectsdesignteamsshould ‘havemorepeerreview throughtheprocesssoyoubringmorepeopleinto thetentasyougoalong …’ (civilengineer).While theoriginalWungongLSPdesignteamhadasubstantial60consultantsrepresenting38differentorganisations(Weller 2008,257)thereisalsoaneedto incorporatealsothosewhoarelikelytoresisttheprojectaimssothattheirconcerns(whereappropriate)are abletobeconstructivelyfoldedintothedesignprocess (Hoyeretal. 2011,36).Thisreflectsthemaxim ‘keep yourfriendsclose,butyourenemies’ closer …’

Atthesametime,particularpeople,whopossibly hadanideologicalreasonfornotsupportingtheproject,carriedoutthe2010Wungongpeerreviewprocess.Asituationthatresultedinareviewwhich employed ‘adversariallanguage’ andfocusedentirely onthenegatives(Ellis 2010,2).The findingsofsuch areviewarethusinevitably ‘diluted’ anditcanbe difficulttoascertainwhatare ‘real’ planningissues thatdorequireresolution – andthosethathavearisen forotherreasons.Suchasituationcouldfailtomeet commonlyheldexpectationsaboutpeerreviewbeing ‘independentandimpartial’ (DesignCouncil 2013,2).

Insayingthis,thedesignteamsshouldalsoprovide adetailedaccountofwhatexistingstategovernment policiestheyarefollowing,andthosethattheyare deviatingfrom,withanappropriatejustification.For instance,urbandesignersfromtheLSPWungong designteamhaveindicatedthattheWungongLSPis ‘moreLivableNeighbourhoodsthanmostpeoplethink …’ (urbandesigner)andindeed ‘residentialareasare organisedinaccordwithwalkabledistancestoneighbourhoodcentres,streetsforminterconnectedgrids asopposedtocul-de-sacs,nobuildingsbackonto POS,andgenerousstreetscapesareprescribed’ (Weller 2008,263).Clarifyingboththedifferencesfrom,and similaritiesto,existingplanningpoliciesmayhelpto neutraliseunnecessaryantagonismfromthosewho mightbeweddedtocurrentplanningregimes.

Finally,thecritiqueoftheWungongLSPfromthe perspectivesoftheinequitabledistributionandprovisionofopenspace(Burrell 2010,1;Jonesetal. 2010,3),remainconjecture.Ultimatelysuchclaims, needtobeverified througha ‘needsbasedassessment’

ofasimilardemographictothoseexpectedtoliveat Wungong.Suchanassessmentconsidersnotonlythe totalnumberofpeoplewithinagivenanarea,butcruciallyalso ‘accountsfortheirsocio-demographiccomposition,theirleisureandrecreationpreferencesand thoseofvarioussub-groupswithinthispopulation, andthetypeandnumberoffacilitiesrequiredto servethoseneeds’ (SipeandByrne 2010,23).Without suchdetailbeingconsideredanassessmentislikelyto bea ‘blind’ applicationofgenericPOSstandards(Sipe andByrne 2010,21)ora ‘ruleofthumb’ feeling – either ofwhichislikelytobesuspect.Thelessonfromthisis that,havingascientificbasis(suchasaneed-based assessment)fromwhichinnovativePOSsystemscan beargued ‘towork’,isvitalforfendingoff relatedcritiqueswhichareotherwiselikelytosurface.

Mitigatingresistancefromdevelopers

TheexperienceofdeliveringtheearlystagesoftheWungongLSPcertainlyofferslessonsforplannersintermsof mitigatingresistancefromdevelopers.Primarilyitindicatestheimportanceofhavingdevelopers,andtheir developmentmodel,factoredintotheearlyplanning forinnovativePOSmatrices.Forinstanceifthedevelopmentmodelistobeprecinct-baseditisworthconsideringwhetherPOSmodelsshouldfollowthisleadandalso belargelyself-containedwithinprecincts – something whichwouldeasetheresistancefromdeveloperswho arerequiredtofundtheDCSforitemstheyfeelaredisconnectedfromtheirdevelopmentprecinct.Alternatively,ifPOSmatricesareholistic,andrequire substantialconnectivityandcoordinationacrossmultiple scales,thenthereexistspotentialinalsoreducingthe numberofdevelopers.Indeed, plannersbringingasingle landdeveloperintothedesignprocessearlier(civil engineer)couldeasesomeofthesecoordinationchallenges.Thissaidworkingwithasingledeveloperalso entailsparticularrisksaswell,byriskingeverythingon oneendeavour.Plannersshouldseektheinputdevelopmentearlyintheprocessbecause ‘theearlierthecommercialrealityisfactoredinthemoreefficientthe planningprocesswillbe’ (projectdirector).

Regardlessofthedevelopmentmodelpursueditis importantthataphasingstrategyisadvancedthatallows thetestingofmarketdemand,andactualusageofcertain POSfeatures,priortorollingoutinnovatePOSmatrices acrossabroadscale.Suchapilotprojectcouldhelpto reassuredevelopersthatinnovativePOSmatricescan increaselandvalue,andsubsequentlyareworthinvesting in.SuchaprocessbringstomindFrederickLawOlmsted meticulouslydocumentingtheimpactofCentralParkon adjacentpropertyvaluesanddemonstratingthatthe parkmadea ‘ profit’– datawhichwascrucialinprovidingthejustificationforlargeurbanparksinManhattan butalsoanumberofotherNorthAmericancities (Crompton 2005,218).

Thesubstantialcritique,whichtheLSPhasreceived fromthedevelopmentcommunityregardingthe amountof filltomakedrainagework,highlightsthe needtohave,moredetailed,engineeringadviceon suchproposalsearlyintheprocess.Asaninterviewee explains ‘perhapswecouldhavedoneabitmoreengineeringattheoutsettotestthisphilosophyaboutthe drainage,inhindsightwehavebeenabitnaïvein thatrespect – abitmoreonthegroundinvestigative workpriortomovingtwofarforward’ (projectdirector).Thispointisofimportancebecauseasaproject engineerexplains ‘ifyouwanttodosomethingasradicalasthis(LSP)youaregoingtohituncertainties,it’ s easyforpeopletosay, “Thiswon’twork …”’ (civil engineer).ByhavingaLSPthatdoesnotfullydeal withthescienceofhydrologicalissuesinitiallyleaves suchadocumentopentocritiquebythose,fromthe developmentcommunityorelsewhere,whohave differingagendas.

Mitigatingresistancefromregulatorybodies

WhiletheexperienceofdeliveringtheWungongLSPhas implicationsforhowpolicymakersshouldcreatearegulatorycontextthatprotectsandfacilitatesinnovation.The nurturingofinnovationrequiresthatweneutralisethe overtriskaversecultureembeddedwithinandacross organisations(inparticularpublicagencies), ‘whereany failure,irrespectiveofcontext,isconsideredanegative outcome’ (FarrellyandBrown 2011,727).Becauseof thisitisimportantthatprotectedspacesarecreatedto allowexperimentstoemergeanddevelop(Farrellyand Brown 2011,729).InrelationtotheWungongLSPthis ‘nurturing’ environmentwouldseedrainageengineers, forinstancehave flexibilitytorelaxrequirementsaround flowmeasurements,andevenaroundsometimes-overzealoussafetyrequirements,whichtendtocompromisethe useabilityofLivingStreamenvironments,inparticular. Moreover,theprojectraisesquestionsastothegovernancearrangementsfordeliveringsuchholistic,multifunctionalPOSdrivenprojects.Whilethe redevelopmentauthoritymodelhasworkedwellfor deliveringcontentiousprojectselsewhereinPerth (Weller 2007),andelsewhere(RigbyandBreen 1996, 19),itappearstocauseadministrativeissueswhen thegoverningauthorityisrequiredto filterallinformationto,andfrom,therelevantgovernmentagencies. Inthisrespect,innovativeprojectsrequireanoverarchingsteeringcommittee,whichreflectstheapproval agenciesrequiredforintegratedPOSandstormwater matrices,sothatthecommitteecanmakedecisions quickly,andcollaboratively(Hoyeretal. 2011,38). WhiletheearlyLSPdesignteamembodiedthisidea, itisimportantthatplanningministersmaintainthis groupoverthelifetimeoftheproject – asopposedto thebreakdownofthismodelsubsequenttothechange ofstategovernmentandrespectiveplanningministers.

Therelevantlocalgovernmentshouldultimatelybe partofthisworkinggroup,astheywilllikelyberesponsibleforthelongterm,demandingmaintenance regimesofsuchmultifunctionalPOSmatrices(Hoyer etal. 2011,37).ThisisbecausesuchPOSsuchsituationsoftenrequireaspecialisedappropriatelyskilled maintenanceteamseparatetotheparksandgardens maintenanceteamstypicalofmostcouncils(Hoyer etal. 2011,78).Indeedifplannersaretomitigate localgovernmentresistancetosuchPOSsystemproposals,itwillrequirethatpolicymakersadequately fundtherelevantlocalgovernmenttoprovidethis levelofmaintenancetocomplexPOS.

Conclusion

Thispaperhassetouttheinnovativeprinciplesthat characterisetheWungongLSPandconsideredthebarrierstotheirimplementationandwhatplannerscould dotomitigatesuchresistanceinsimilarfutureprojects. TheWungongLSP’soverarchingstructurevariesresonateswithalong-establishedtraditionofplanners pushingopen-spacesystemstotheforeinsuburban planning – suchisinRiversideinChicagoandCastlecraginSydney(Weller 2009,254).Whiletheseprecedentsarewellestablished,asthispaperisevidence therealchallengeofinnovativeopenspacenetworks isnottheirplanning,buthowtheyareisreconciled withconditions ‘ontheground’ inalltheireconomic, hydrological,ecological,socialandpoliticalcomplexity.Wehavedirectedthispapertowardsthisend.

Notes

1.CoordinationofthedeliveryoftheWungongLSP shiftedtotheMetropolitanRedevelopmentAuthority in2010.

2.Thisstatementisnotmeanttoimplytherewasany wrong-doingoccurringinthisrespect.

3.Weuse ‘planners’ asinclusiveofurbandesign.

4.LandscapeUrbanismisalandscapeandurbandesign theorythatemergedoutofthenexusofHarvardUniversityandtheUniversityofPennsylvaniaintheearly 2000’s(Thompson 2011,8).Landscapeurbanismproposedthatlandscapesystemsshouldfunctionasa ‘templateforurbanism’ (Weller 2006b,67).

5.Infactthelanddevelopersareonlygiven50%credit forParkAvenuesandLivingStreamsasPOSwhile conventionalparksarecreditedas100%POS(MetropolitanRedevelopmentAuthority 2012b,12).

6.Representativesfromthelanddevelopmentindustry hadbeeninvolvedinthe2004–2007planningfor theLSPhoweverhadfailedtoraisesubstantiveissues withtheabilityoftheplantobeimplemented(project director).

7.Thiswasdespitethefactthattoenablea ‘degreeof flexibility,theLSPspecifiedthatanavenuecouldbe adjustedtoadistanceof30metres buteachdevelopmentmustensurethattheavenueentersandleaves anyparticularsub-divisionasdemarcatedonthemasterplan’ (Weller 2008,261).

8.TheWaterCorporation’srequirementshydraulic, safety,publicliabilityrelatedandinthemselvescan takesometimetonavigateandhaveapproved(governmentrepresentative).

9.TheDepartmentofWaterandWaterCorporation haverecentlybeenworkingcollaboratively,though theDrainageforLiveabilityProgram,toimprovethe abilityofdrainstodelivermultipledrainageand recreationbenefits – thisprogramsigni fiesanimportantchangeofthinkingintheWaterCorporation (governmentrepresentative).

Disclosurestatement

TheAustralianUrbanDesignResearchCentre,wherethe authorisemployed,receivedfundingfromtheMetropolitan RedevelopmentAuthority(MRA),forarelatedyetdifferent project,atthetimeofwritingthispaper.Thecasestudyproject ‘Wungong’ isanMRAproject.

Funding

ThisworkwassupportedbytheMetropolitanRedevelopmentAuthority[grantnumberR15398].

References

ArmadaleRedevelopmentAuthority n.d “WungongUrban DeveloperContributionScheme(DCS)Presentation.” Unpublished.

AustralianBureauofStatistics. 2017. “3222.0 – Population Projections,Australia,2017(Base) – 2066.” Australian BureauofStatistics.AccessedAugust23. https://www.abs. gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/3222.0Main+Features 12017%20(base)%20-%202066?OpenDocument

Bolleter,J. 2016 “BackgroundNoise:AReviewoftheEffects ofBackgroundInfillonUrbanLiveabilityinPerth.” AustralianPlanner 10:1–14.

Burrell,Bill. 2010 ReviewofUrbanDesignandMasterPlanningWungongUrbanWaterMasterPlan.Perth: TaylorBurrellBarnett. Carrington,Kerry,andNeilMarshall. 2008 “Building MulticulturalSocialCapitalinRegionalAustralia.” RuralSociety 18(2):117–130. CongressofNewUrbanism. 2016. “TheCharterofthe NewUrbanism.” CongressofNewUrbanism.Accessed August15. https://www.cnu.org/who-we-are/charternew-urbanism Crompton,John. 2005 “TheImpactofParksonProperty Values:EmpiricalEvidencefromthePastTwoDecades intheUnitedStates.” ManagingLeisure 10(4):203–218. DesignCouncil. 2013 DesignReview:PrinciplesandPractice London:DesignCouncil. Duany,Andres,andEmilyTalen. 2013a Landscape UrbanismandItsDiscontents:Dissimulatingthe SustainableCity.GabriolaIsland:NewSocietyPublishers. Duany,Andres,andEmilyTalen. 2013b “Looking Backward:NotesonaCulturalEpisode.” In Landscape UrbanismandItsDiscontents:Dissimulatingthe Sustainable City,editedbyAndresDuanyandEmily Talen,1–16.GabriolaIsland:NewSocietyPublishers. Ellis,John. 2010. “ManagementResponseReviewof WungongPeerReviewReport.” Unpublished. Farrelly,Magan,andRebekahBrown. 2011 “Rethinking UrbanWaterManagement:ExperimentationasaWay Forward?” GlobalEnvironmentalChange 21(2):721–732.

Groat,Linda,andDavidWang. 2002 ArchitecturalResearch Methods.Canada:JohnWileyandSons. Hoyer,Jacqueline,WolfgangDickhaut,LukasKronawitter, andBjörnWeber. 2011. WaterSensitiveUrbanDesign: PrinciplesandInspirationforSustainableStormwater ManagementintheCityoftheFuture.Hamburg:Jovis. Jones,Evan,BillBurrell,WendyMorris,TonyWong,and LesStein. 2010 “ArmadaleRedevelopmentAuthority WungongUrbanWaterProjectReview.” Wungong IndependentPeerReviewPanel.

Kelley,Kate,BelindaClark,VivienneBrown,andJohnSitzia. 2003 “GoodPracticeintheConductandReportingof SurveyResearch.” InternationalJournalforQualityin HealthCare 15(3):261–266.

Kullmann,Karl. 2011 “ThinParks/ThickEdges:Towardsa LinearParkTypologyfor(Post)InfrastructuralSites.” JournalofLandscapeArchitecture 6(2):70–81.

MetropolitanRedevelopmentAuthority. 2012a. Wungong UrbanDevelopmentContributionSchemeReport.Perth: GovernmentofWesternAustralia.

MetropolitanRedevelopmentAuthority. 2012b Wungong UrbanWaterRedevelopmentPublicOpenSpacePolicy Perth:GovernmentofWesternAustralia.

Pen,Luke,andKarenMajer. 1994 “DrainsVersusLiving Streams.” PaperpresentedattheHowDoYouDoIt?Water SensitiveUrbanDesignSeminar1994;Proceedings,Perth. Rigby,Dick,andAnnBreen. 1996 TheNewWaterfront London:ThamesandHudson.

Sack,Tinka,AndrewNugent,MichaelRowlands,Margaret Grose,andRichardWeller. 2004 Brookdal e – Planning fromtheGroundUp.Perth:TheUniversityofWestern Australia.

Singh,B.,Y.Pal,S.Clohessy,andS.Wong. 2012. AcidSulfate SoilSurveyinPerthMetropolitanRegion,SwanCoastal PlainWA.Perth:DepartmentofEnvironmentand Conservation,GovernmentofWesternAustralia. Sipe,Neil,andJasonByrne. 2010 GreenandOpenSpace PlanningforUrbanConsolidation – AReviewofthe LiteratureandBestPractice.Brisbane:GriffithUniversity. Smith,Ken. 1999 “ LinearLandscapes:Corridors, Conduits,Strips,Edges,andSegues.” HarvardDesign Magazine 77.

Thompson,Ian. 2011 “TenTenetsandSixQuestionsfor LandscapeUrbanism.” LandscapeResearch 37(1):7–26.

Weller,Richard. 2006a “AnArtofInstrumentality: ThinkingThroughLandscapeUrbanism.” In The LandscapeUrbanismReader,69–86.NewYorkCity: PrincetonArchitecturalPress.

Weller,Richard. 2006b. “GlobalTheory,LocalPractice.” Kerb 15:66–71.

Weller,Richard. 2007 “NorthbridgeLink.” Landscape ArchitectureAustralia 114:28–31.

Weller,Richard. 2008 “Landscape(Sub)Urbanismin TheoryandPractice. ” LandscapeJournal 27(2):247–267.

Weller,Richard. 2009 Boomtown2050.Perth:Universityof WesternAustraliaPress. WestAustralianPlanningCommission,&Departmentof Planning. 2015 Liveable Neighbourhoods https://www. dplh.wa.gov.au/getmedia/afb82ec4-31a5-4a14-8af4-c840b 3c2b81e/FUT-LiveableNeighbourhoods_2015 Wong,Tony. 2006 “WaterSensitiveUrbanDesign – the JourneyThusFar.” AustralianJournalofWater Resources 10(3):213–220.

Wood-Gush,Brett. 2008. “WungongUrbanWaterProject: GoingBeyondLiveableNeighbourhoodsinthePursuit ofEnvironmentalPlanningBestPractice.” Australian Planner 45(2):8–11.