AUTHORSHIP OF THE METROPOLIS BEN PEAKE
Positioning The Metropolis with Anthony Burke Master of Architecture Faculty of Design, Architecture & Building University of Technology, Sydney, May 2013
Introduction The Metropolis is a formation created by a gathering and settling of people coming together for trade, protection, to exchange ideas, and to be sociable. The construction of cities creates a complex series of relationships and forces that combine to generate the built environment over time. As we move to an ever increasingly urbanized world, understanding these relationships become crucial for those who wish to help shape the metropolis. The built environment is an extension of society and a representation of the people we want to be. In order to understand how cities have become humanities largest endeavor with 53% of people living in urbanized areas (Burdett & Rode 2011), it is important to consider how relationships operate through laws and rules that govern and enable coexistence. How is the Metropolis created, who holds authorship over it, and how can individual citizens be involved in the direction and development of the Metropolis? The Social Contract To Government Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his 1762 essay1 describes a theory for the process of man entering an agreement that binds people together for the common will as a social contract. The principle argument of the social contract is that in order to extend ourselves beyond the state of nature society must collectively agree to relinquish some liberties in order to have all others protected, and that the state is the most suited to hold the authority over individuals, but that ultimately the power of the state belongs to the people. Rousseau understands society as a part to whole relationship and defines the essence of the
Social Contract as “each of us puts in common his person and all his power under the supreme direction of the general will; and in return each member becomes an indivisible part of the whole” (Rousseau 2002). The social contract is a philosophical concept that creates a structure around why people organize themselves in order to achieve an outcome. It is not a physical or legal contract that is signed upon birth, but rather an unspoken and informal understanding that to achieve something great we must work together. Various achievements of humanity are made possible through the collective energy of many people, architecture and the built environment are visual, spatial, and physical manifestations of this collaboration. “This public person, which is thus formed by the union of all the individual members, used to be called a city, and is now called republic or body polic. When it is passive, it is called by its members State, and sovereign when it is active” (Rousseau 2002 pp164). In other words, the concept of the social contract is the formation of the public body, the citizens and the state, resulting in a part-part relationship between individual members of the state, and a part-whole relationship between members and the state itself. In modern democratic society Governments are the body that represents the state. Obtaining power and legitimacy through an election that entitles them a mandate to make judgements and decisions about the direction of society. To continue to govern the decisions and judgments made by the government must be seen as adhering to the common will, or the citizens replace the government by way of elections 1
2
93 Spatial Districts of NSW Legislative Assembly. Each is containing aproximatly the same percentage of the population, and each represented by a single Member of Parliament.
or rebellion with new members. The absence of a challenge or rebellion further legitimizes the authority of government over individuals, and confirms the general will is being followed. Democratic structure suggests for a government to maintain power, and be successful it must adhere to the social contract in delivering the common will. However there are significant issues that affect a Government’s ability to clearly identify what the common will is, including the complexity of distilling competing values and voices. In New South Wales, Australia, the state government is the mechanism that represent the population through a model of representative governance. At this point it is interesting to note Rousseau that although the general will is “always right and always tends to the public good; but it does not follow that the deliberations of the people always have the same rectitude. Men always desire their own good, but do not always discern it, the people are never corrupted, though often deceived, and it is only then that they seem to will what is evil� (Rousseau 2002). Those with authority then have a responsibility to explore the contesting desires of individuals and use the power invested in it by the social contract to make decisions for the public good. The NSW Legislative Assembly is a form of representative democracy. It is established through an election process where the ninety three spatial districts of NSW each elect a member to represent them. Known as electorates the spatial boundaries are designed so that each area represents roughly the same amount of individuals, giving each member of parliament
a voice that is equally representative of the population. The government is then formed by these electorate representative who should speak on behalf of the people they represent. Leaving aside for a moment the various political parties, and the internal party politics that may overshadow the individual judgement process of a given member, it is currently virtually impossible for a member of parliament to establish a common will amongst the significant number of people within an electorate they may represent. Instead the process of election has entrusted the representative member with the power of judgement and decision making. In other words the political system hands judgement to a small percentage of people to make decisions daily on behalf of the wider population. However, making a decision implies there is more than one option available, and while the electorate my not agree with the judgement of their representative on every issue they should be able to see that for the long term the decision has been made for the common good. Democracy is therefore the interplay between the public being represented, and the judgements and decisions made by their elected officials. Currently the only structured formal engagement the electorate has with their state government representative is during an election which is typically every four years. However, in every community there are other voices engaged in, and steering the judgement process not only for the built environment, but for all aspects of contemporary governance. These voices originate from various individuals and organizations, and highlight the difference in value between public and private interest as one of the conflicts governments must navigate. 3
Figure 1: Vision for Sydney in 2031 BELLS LINEBELLS OF ROAD LINE OF ROAD
BROKEN BAY BROKEN BAY
GLOBAL SYDNEY GLOBAL SYDNEY Palm Beach Palm Beach
Richmond Richmond Windsor Windsor
PARRAMATTA PARRAMATTA
Regional City Regional City
Metropolitan Rural Area Metropolitan Rural Area
POTENTIAL POTENTIAL HIGH SPEED HIGH SPEED RAIL LINKRAIL LINK
SpecialisedSpecialised Precincts Precincts
Rouse NORTH WEST NORTH WEST Hill GROWTHGROWTH CENTRE CENTRE
SpecialisedSpecialised Precincts —Precincts Potential— Potential Major Centre Major Centre
Springwood Springwood PARK MARSDEN MARSDEN PARK BUSINESS PARK BUSINESS PARK
Major Centre — Planned Major Centre — Planned
Mona ValeMona Vale
Rouse Hill
Hornsby Hornsby
North West Link Corridor North West Rail LinkRail Corridor NORWESTNORWEST BUSINESS BUSINESS PARK PARK
Major Centre — Potential Major Centre — Potential
Mount Druitt
Mount Druitt PENRITH PENRITH PENRITH PENRITH
9 City Shapers 9 City Shapers City ShaperCity Shaper
EDUCATION EDUCATION & HEALTH & HEALTH
Metropolitan Metropolitan Urban Area Urban Area
M4
Blacktown Blacktown
M4
Growth Centres Growth Centres Potential Area Expansion Potential Urban Area Urban Expansion Western Sydney Parklands Western Sydney Parklands Metropolitan Metropolitan Rural Area Rural Area
OUTER OUTER SYDNEY SYDNEY ORBITAL ORBITAL
M9
Castle Hill
Castle Hill
M2
M2
M9
BurwoodBurwood
Corridors
GlobalCorridor Economic Corridor Global Economic
Warragamba Warragamba
SOUTH WEST SOUTH WEST GROWTHGROWTH CENTRE CENTRE Leppington Leppington
BANKSTOWN BANKSTOWN AIRPORT AIRPORT –MILPERRA –MILPERRA
M5
HurstvilleHurstville
Harbour SydneySydney Harbour
GLOBAL SYDNEY GLOBAL SYDNEY
SYDNEY SYDNEY
Green Green Square Square Bondi Bondi Bondi Beach Bondi Beach JunctionJunction
RANDWICK EDUCATION EDUCATION SYDNEY & HEALTH& HEALTH SYDNEY AIRPORT AIRPORT
Corridor Anzac Anzac ParadeParade Corridor
PORT PORT BOTANY BOTANY
KOGARAH KOGARAH OFFICE CLUSTER OFFICE CLUSTER
Motorways — New Motorways Motorways — New Motorways
Transit — Existing Network Transit — Existing Network Transit — Network Expansion Transit — Network Expansion
NORTH NORTH SYDNEY SYDNEY
RANDWICK
M5
Motorways — Existing Network Motorways — Existing Network
Motorways Potential Expansion Motorways — Potential — Expansion
ST LEONARDS ST LEONARDS OFFICE CLUSTER OFFICE CLUSTER
Bankstown Bankstown
LIVERPOOL LIVERPOOL
Manly
Chatswood Chatswood
Fairfield Fairfield
Western Sydney Employment Area Western Sydney Employment Area
Corridors
Manly
Parramatta Road Parramatta Road Corridor
M7
Brookvale– Brookvale– Dee WhyDee Why
Global Economic Corridor Global Economic Corridor
SYDNEY SYDNEY OLYMPIC OLYMPIC PARK PARK RHODES RHODES BUSINESS BUSINESS PARK PARK Corridor
Prairiewood Prairiewood
M7
FRENCHS FRENCHS FOREST FOREST HEALTH HEALTH MACQUARIE PARK MACQUARIE PARK PARK BUSINESSBUSINESS PARK
RYDALMERE RYDALMERE WESTMEAD WESTMEAD EDUCATION EDUCATION HEALTH HEALTH WESTMEAD WESTMEAD
PARRAMATTA PARRAMATTA
Sydney Employment WesternWestern Sydney Employment Area Area
Metropolitan Metropolitan Rural Area Rural Area —National Parks —National Parks
M1
M1
OUTER OUTER SYDNEY SYDNEY ORBITAL ORBITAL
BOTANY BAY BOTANY BAY
Metropolitan Rural Area Metropolitan Rural Area M31
Potential High Speed Rail Potential High Speed Rail
Camden
Camden
M31
POTENTIAL POTENTIAL HIGH SPEED HIGH SPEED RAIL LINK RAIL LINK
Sutherland Sutherland
Cronulla Waterfall
Cronulla
Waterfall
Campbelltown– Campbelltown– MacarthurMacarthur
M1 Picton
4
M1
Picton
Draft Metropolitan Strategy Diagram of Sydney’s Planning Future (NSW Government 2013a)
Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney
5
Is Planning The Right Tool? Understanding, as Harvey does in ‘The Right to the City’, that “the question of what kind of city we want cannot be divorced from the question of what kind of people we want to be” (Harvey 2012), the link between our built environment and society is evident in the relationships between individuals and authority. From this perspective the methods for city making, planning, and development are significant for the crucial role they play in building better societies. Given that cities are formed though the relinquishing of individual rights in order for the common will to prevail, then these documents represent the balancing act in relation to the built environment. Planning and development tools, such as the NSW Planning White Paper, and Sydney Metropolitan Strategy, are contemporary formalizations of the fundamental concept of the social contract, in that the prioritization of various developments, programs, and infrastructure must be done for the greatest social benefit if the relevant authority is to adhere to their role in delivering to the common will. The documents themselves are versions of the democratic governance system, as for one strategic decision to be considered and implemented many other possibilities are excluded. Through these documents, laws, and strategic guides the government, as a representative of the population, holds authorship over the metropolis, as it determines where, how, and when the built environment is developed. Government and authority tools work at various scales across the metropolis, therefore, it is useful to review instances of developing the built environment at various levels. The aim is to
understand how governments, as representatives of the people, are able to guide the development of the metropolis alongside the common will requirements of the social contract. The NSW Planning White Paper which proposes changes to the planning act, and the Draft Metropolitan Plan for Sydney provide high level structural views on how the government organise their objectives, while the redevelopment of Darling Harbour provides specific examples of the competing voices at play. The NSW Planning White Paper refers to “common goals of making NSW number one” and continues that the main purpose of planning is to “promote economic growth and development in NSW for the benefit of the entire community” (NSW Government 2013b). The significance of these statements is by the use of words ‘common’ and ‘entire community’ that together refer to benefitting the whole of society, or in Rousseau’s words ‘general will’. Behind these statements lie complex calculations and judgments to give hierarchy to various components of city making, resulting in priority for those that deliver the highest social benefit, as determined by those with authority. The Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney to 2031 prepares a vision for the metropolitan region, as shown in the adjacent diagram. The strategy aims to set the framework for the development of metropolitan Sydney, and proudly advertises the strategy was developed through consultation and collaboration with citizens. However, the reality of community engagement to date has been limited. As part of the a metropolitan strategy discussion paper released in 2012 there were 155 written submissions, and 240 people attending 5
6
Home Page of Super Sydney Initiative showing the comments of various citizens (Super Sydney)
Sydney Exhibition Centre by Philip Cox Richardson Taylor & Partners (Bingham-Hall)
7
community forum meetings (NSW Government 2013a). In comparison to the 4.3 million people living in the metropolitan area, the involvement is insignificant and can hardly be seen as a reflection of the common will as it represents merely 0.009% of the population. If people are not interested in their right to shape the city, how can the method used to adhere to the common will be more equitable when the level of direct community engagement makes it difficult to calculate what the common will is? Furthermore, governments have to navigate the value differences between public and private interest. Often it is private enterprise with the finances, ability, and desire to most have their voice heard. Combining the limited public engagement with a view that “the contemporary city is built for corporations run by administrative boards for multinational shareholders’ interests” (Zaera-Polo 2012) the competing forces in determining what the common will becomes more complicated.
The Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney, can be considered a formalization of the philosophical concepts contained in the social contract, however given the minimal direct involvement of citizens to date, we must question how judgements are being made on behalf of the population. We live in a world “where the rights of private property and the profit rate trump all other notions of rights one can think of” (Harvey 2012). Traditional governance has been deregulated, decentralized, and privatized as part of a move to neoliberal open markets. The NSW Government Architects office is no longer responsible for the design of all ‘public’ buildings due to the privatization of institutions as the economic models and excess capital that drive urbanization result in the right to the city becoming increasingly the responsibility of private interest. Who is speaking out about the built environment if the general public are not engaging with methods the government has put forward?
Harvey, in discussing Lefebvre’s Right to the City, hints to the issues of community engagement by referring to our ability to “change and reinvent the city more after our hearts desire” as ” the most precious yet most neglected of our human rights” (Harvey 2008). Precious, and clearly neglected if the 0.009% participation of Sydney’s population participation on the metropolitan strategy is to be considered. Is the comparably low number of formal responses representing only those with an acute interest in the subject of the cities future, anthropologists, architects, and social theorist? Or, are the methods, tools, and delivery failing the system and the population?
‘The Urban Taskforce’ representing “Australia’s most prominent property developers and equity financiers” (Urban Taskforce Australia) advocates policy change to Government bodies in relation to the built environment. With former NSW Government Architect Chris Johnston as CEO, the organization’s mission statement is to “promote efficient planning and environment laws; quality urban design; increased economic activity; and improved quality of life in urban communities” (Urban Taskforce Australia). The Urban Taskforce have the potential to replace the voice of citizens as they have the financial, and motivational backing of corporations. The argument here isn’t that governments, or lobby groups like the
8
Urban Taskforce are evil enterprises seeking the suppression of communities, but rather a criticism of the tools and systems contemporary governments use to understand and articulate the common will. In fact, Chris Johnson practically advocates against involving the public in the decision making process. In comments related to the Barrangarro development on Sydney’s harbour, Johnson reduces the debate to an issue of participatory versus representative democracy. “Participatory democracy is difficult in trying to advance the state and to get major projects to happen. Inevitably, the more you say ‘let people decide’ the less likely anything is going to happen” (Feneley & Nicholls). Community engagement may be difficult, but that does not mean it shouldn’t be done, more so when the decision has larger significance. Governments have an obligation in providing judgement on behalf of the electorate, more efforts must be given to obtaining an understanding on what the common will of the people actually is. Following these difficulties it is important to consider opportunities for better articulating the common will, and methods for a more participatory democracy. An initiative that has made progress towards improving an understanding of the desires of Sydney’s Population is ‘Super Sydney’. Super Sydney was “a Sydney Architecture Festival event, creating a shared vision for Sydney” (Super Sydney 2012) and could provide methods for engaging the community, and qualifying what the common will is. Interviews and meetings across all of the metropolitan area were recorded and presented to form a picture of the type of metropolis the population wants for Sydney in
the future. The website, as shown on the previous page, allows for the views of the community to be articulated and shared. This methodology shows there is opportunity for government to improve community response so there can be a greater understanding of what the desires of citizens are. By increasing the scale of programs like Super Sydney it would be possible to better articulate how the citizens of Sydney want to shape their metropolis. Sydney today presents opportunities to illustrate how an absence of community engagements affects the built environment. Infrastructure for NSWs recent proposal to renew the Darling Harbour Convention Area has been criticized for the lack of public consultation prior to the developers proposal being released to the public. The proposal sees two significant public buildings demolished to allow updated facilities to replace them. The structures affected by this change include the Sydney Convention Centre by John Andrews, and the 1989 Sulman Award winning Exhibition Centre by Philip Cox Richardson Taylor & Partners (Australian Institute of Architects 2011). Since the release of the Infrastructure NSW proposal both of the original architects have questioned, and criticized the proposal for it’s disregard of the existing buildings, but more significantly for the failure of authority to establish due process. Philip Cox specifically questions the governments motives for asking developers to revamp the site without any government masterplan, referring to the absence of process as ‘vandalism’ (Moore 2012). Philip Thalis also criticized the role of the government in urban planning “again in NSW, we get planning 9
by press release, instead of by public policy or real planning” (Hasham & McKenny 2012). The vocal nature of Cox and Thalis reply to the plan raises the interesting point – what is, or more appropriately what should the role of the architect be in maintaining the public built environment? What is the ethical obligation for the architecture profession to champion the right to be involved in the authorship of the city? Role of Architects Architects are traditionally positioned towards the end of the supply chain of a buildings procurement process. Often engaged after the location, purpose, and budget for a building has been decided. However given “the Metropolis is the site of all the world’s problems” (Nowak 2011) Architects have an interest and obligation towards building the greater built environment and a better society. The NSW Architects Code of Professional Conduct provides expected standards of professional conduct for Architects in NSW, and recognizes architects not only have a duty to their clients, but a concurrent duty to the public by asking architects to “recognise that the fundamental and overriding obligation of a profession is to serve and promote the public interest” (NSW Architects Registration Board 2012). However, since no details are provided as to what the public interest may or may not be it is valuable to look at the actions of architects to gain some insight into their view of what the public interest is in relation to the built environment. Along with Cox, Andrews, and Thalis, other architects have become advocates for not only retaining the excising
10
buildings at Darling Harbour, which are less than 30 years old, but also questioning the process surrounding the development and the influence this change has on the significant themes of city and place making. Sydney Architect Simon Chan has created a petition, calling for supporters to request the NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell “Save The Centres” by considering options of extension rather than demolition (Chan 2013) noting due to the young age of the building it does not quality for heritage trust (Gorman 2013). Meanwhile an Architect group have established a website containing reports, essays, and comparative analysis of the proposals. Their aim is for “the protection of the significant collection of bicentenary buildings at Darling Harbour” by sharing information to provide an understanding of the complex issues at play, and outlining the buildings industrial, historical, social and technological significance to Sydney (Save The Centres 2013). Their position is summarized in a statement by Professor Jennifer Taylor “cities are not inert objects that can be dissected at will - they are the repositories of history of the ideals and aspirations of people who built them and the inheritance of those who follow” (Save The Centres 2013). Darling Harbour is a place of metropolitan significance, there should be an understanding of what is considered important by the public before changes are proposed. Having community involvement has the potential to lead to greater change, and change that is embraced by the users.
Conclusion In the absence of the general public engaging in the planning of our built environment, and when those charted with making decisions on behalf of the polis fail to engage the community, it is difficult to know if changes to the built environment are done with the general will in mind. To be clear, the argument isn’t that cities should not change and develop to shifting needs, it is questioning how the population of a city can be involved in it’s development given the issues discussed herein. Three main elements affect this, firstly that the population has largely handed their involvement in shaping the built environment to governments as part of the entrusting them with social contract. Secondly, that when asked few citizens currently comment on the formal planning methods used by government. Finally, that authorities have not engaged the population for comment, according to the Darling Harbour proposal. As the growth of the metropolis moves away from government controlled development, to the free market production by private sector development so does the associated authority. In a way, governments have relinquished their control over the built environment to the free market. From a design perspective this has allowed for advancements in technology, and formal responses, however since the motivation for private enterprise is capital profit – how can the common will, or collective right to the city be maintained if the interest of only an elite few are the driving force behind urbanization? A balance is required between governance of development, and encouragement of open markets and innovation. The site of this balance
is the boundary between public and private. It’s inherently spatial, a point where the interests of both forces meet. Governments should be fully responsible for the public domain, and ensure that the private domain meets value guidelines established by the government. Identifying, maintaining, and updating the value guidelines must be done according to the common will. As shown by Cox and Thalis, Architects, as representatives of the built environment, can challenge authority, government and the private sector to fulfill their role in the social contract by acknowledging the general will and shaping our cities in ways that deliver the highest levels of social benefit. Undoubtably Sydney must change and develop, but there currently exist no method to shape the city after the common will of citizens. In order for our government to appropriately represent citizens it must look for tools and methods that accurately and transparently communicate what the common will is. If we desire an honest, equitable, and fair built environment then we must find ways for a more participatory democracy to work. Super Sydney shows that the public have valuable options about the metropolis, and Architects are also enthusiastically involved in considering what is best for the metropolis. Providing a modern structure for identifying and communicating the common will of metropolitan citizens will assist us all in realising, understanding, and fulfilling our obligations of the social contract, creating an environment where all citizens are involved in the authorship of the metropolis. 11
Footnoes 1 ‘Of The Social Contract, Or Principles of Political Right‘ (Rousseau 2002) Bibliography Australian Institute of Architects 2011, NSW Sulman Award for Public Architecture: Winners 2011-1932, viewed 29/04/13 2013, <http://www. architecture.com.au/i-cms?page=15802>. Burdett, R. & Rode, P. 2011, ‘Living In The Urban Age’, in R. Burdett & D. Sudjic (eds), Living In The Endless City, Phaidon Press Ltd, London, pp. 8 - 43. Bingham-Hall, P. 2013, ‘Sydney Exhibition Centre’, <http://www.savethecentres.com.au/index. php?pg=images&subpg=Sydney-ExhibitionCentre-Collection-by-Patrick-Bingham-Hall prettyPhoto>. Chan, S. 2013, Petitioning The Hon. Barry O’Farrell, MP Feneley, R. & Nicholls, S., ‘The bland and the beautiful: battle for a public treasure’, Sydney Morning Herald, 13.05.13. Gorman, J. 2013, ‘Sydney architect calls for preservation of award-winning Darling Harbour buildings’, Central, 15/02/13. Harvey, D. 2008, ‘The Right To The City’, viewed 09/06/2011, <http://www.davidharvey.org/media/ righttothecity.pdf>. Harvey, D. 2012, Rebel Cities, Verso, London. Hasham, N. & McKenny, L. 2012, ‘Demolishing exhibition centre ‘an act of vandalism’, The Sydney Morning Herald 12/12/12. Moore, M. 2012, ‘Architect blasts ‘vandalism’ of harbour precinct’, Sydney Morning Herald. Nowak, W. 2011, ‘Foreward’, in R. Burdett & D.
12
Sudjic (eds), Living In The Endless City, Phaidon Press Ltd, London, pp. 6 - 7. NSW Architects Registration Board 2012, ‘Architects Regulation 2012 NSW Architects Code of Professional Conduct (Clause 13)’. NSW Government 2013a, Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney to 2031, NSW Government, Sydney. NSW Government 2013b, A New Planning System for NSW White Paper, NSW Government. Rousseau, J.-J. 2002, ‘Social Contract’, in S. Dunn (ed.), Social Contract and The First and Second Discourses, Yale University Press, New Haven, pp. 151 - 254. Save The Centres 2013, Recognise Darling Harbour Save the Exhibition and Convention Centres, viewed 27/04/13, <http://www. savethecentres.com.au/overview.html>. Super Sydney 2012, Super Sydney, viewed 13.04.13, <www.supersydney.org>. Urban Taskforce Australia, About Us, Introduction, viewed 10/05/13, <http://www. urbantaskforce.com.au/index.php?option=com_ content&view=article&id=161&Itemid=42>. Urban Taskforce Australia, About Us, Mission Statement, viewed 22.05.13, <http://www. urbantaskforce.com.au/index.php?option=com_ content&view=article&id=161&Itemid=3>. Zaera-Polo, A. 2012, ‘The Politics of the Envelope’, The Snipers Log; The Architectural Chronicles of Generation X, Actar, Barcelona, pp. 446-71.
Ben Peake ben@benpeake.com