Planning For A Better City? by Ben Peake

Planning for a Better City? Ben Peake

Tutor: Tim Williams Professional Practice: The City Master of Architecture Faculty of Design, Architecture & Building University of Technology, Sydney, June 2013

“It’s not our job to tell the community what to think, but if we don’t speak up against something we don’t agree with then how will people know it’s wrong?”1 Philip Graus, Director COX Architecture

Introduction

Critically engaging in the place we live, and the role that our governments play in shaping our built environment is an important and valuable activity for citizens to engage with. The process identifies ways for making things better, a method of improving our cities. However, we must also consider existing assets and opportunities around us. Being critical alone will provide no way forward, however, combining critical engagement with the identification of opportunities, is in my view the best process for building a better metropolis. The French SDRIF Plan contains the phrase “Preserve and Enhance” and I believe this is a wonderful strategic title given to the aims for the region’s green structure. It identifies and acknowledges assets that already exist, and recognises the benefit in further improving them. Enhancing assets to make them more accessible, more utilised, with the aim of creating a more liveable city. My interests of politics, governance, participatory democracy, and the built environment has informed my position and belief that we all have a right to shape the city, and our society. I believe it is the responsibility of government to understand, and work towards the common will of the people it represents. However, currently it is virtually impossible to understand the common will of all the people in New South Wales. Therefore, elected officials, architects, planners, and other professionals have a social and ethical obligation to provide leadership and guidance on our built environment.

The following report addresses green structure as a critical element of the city and aims to critically engage with the NSW Planning White Paper, and Draft Metropolitan Strategy to identify inherent weaknesses and opportunities - the outcome is recomendations for the NSW Government and Planning Department. Cities are complex networked ecosystems, they are the place where multiple forces, voices, and relationships combine at various scales to create the built environment over time. Humanities ability to “to make and remake ourselves and our cities... is one of the most precious yet most neglected of our human rights”(Harvey 2012). Therefore my position is that all citizens must have a right to actively engage with the planning of our built environment especially natural systems, green structure, and open public space. Using Paris as a contemporary comparison, this report is from the standpoint that our cities should be better, not simply bigger, and by making cities better they will welcome natural growth.

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.

Sydney’s Current Position

In an ever increasingly urbanised world cities have become humanities largest endeavor with 53% of people living in urbanized areas (Burdett & Rode 2011), therefore it is critical to understand the importance of the mechanisms governments use to plan Metropolitan growthabd improvement. When “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) it is necessary to see the built environment as the framework that develops our economics, culture, politics, education, health and wellbeing. NSW Planning White Paper The ‘overhaul’ of the NSW Planning System, as expressed through the White Paper - A New Planning System for NSW, aims to “promote economic growth and development in NSW for the benefit of the entire community, while protecting the environment and enhancing people’s way of live” (NSW Government 2013c). The scope of the document is focused on presenting new Legislation to the NSW State Government that will create a new framework for planning and development in NSW.

Draft Metropolitan Strategy The Draft Metropolitan Strategy predates the White Paper and aims to establish a vision for Sydney towards 2031 by creating “A strong global city - a liveable local city” and in a way reads the future by claiming “Sydney in 2031 will be one of the world’s most dynamic and successful cities. Its strong economy and healthy environment will make it one of the most desirable places to live in the world” (NSW Government 2013b). As unfinished work both documents have been presented to the people of NSW, providing an opportunity for all citizens to engage with the content and begin to understand the significance these document have on shaping Sydney.

Painting by Laurent Renou, suggesting the structure of Paris around The Seine during the Merovingian era (Plazy 2003)

Sketch of Sydney’s Settlement (Fowkes 1788) 4

Importance of Green Strucutre Similarly to the formation of Paris around the River Seine, Sydney found it’s formation around natural resources. The establishment of a settlement at Sydney Cove in 1788 was due to access to a fresh water supply, a fundamental building block required for civilisation. Green structure and natural systems are arguably the most fundamental element of the built environment because they provide the base structure to which we build upon. Technology has allowed us to reshape nature, however even today the green and blue structure of Sydney’s limits, dictates, and provides opportunities for growth.

Central Sydney’s own Green and Blue Belt (Peake, 2005)

To use a term from the Metropolitan Strategy, green structure and the natural environment are the original ‘City Shapers’ of Sydney.

View of Sydney’s Growth around water (Peake, 2005)

Centenial Park (2013)

Poster at Gezi Park protest (Eruz 2013)

Green Structure Globally Green structure is recognised globally as an important urban element. As I write this tens of thousands of Istanbul Citizens are enforcing their right to the City by protesting the commercial development of open space - specifically controversial plans to remove trees and construct a shopping centre on Gezi Park (Artemel 2013). Activist began to occupy the park on May 28 2013, and although these demonstrations have now expanded to wider social issues, the origins are within the citizens objection to the removal of trees in a primary public space, and highlights the significance of green space within urban environments. An article on Sustainable Cities explains it as “a movement against the top-down, blatant destruction of the elements of Istanbul that constitute the history, the imaginary of the city which give Istanbul the unique identity it enjoys” (Eruz 2013). One of the protests signs, shown adjacent, uses the global network of urban parks as a political statement expressing the value of Gezi Park to the community. Domestically former Prime Minister Paul Keating has spoken out about the privatisation of Sydney’s public parks. An increasingly commercially focussed use of green open space is questioning our right to occupy the city. When public land is temporarily handed over, fenced, and controlled by private interest it becomes a void in the urban landscape - only those with a ticket are allowed entry. The increasing number of private events results in a decreasing availability of the parklands for general public use. Paul Keating believes the Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust “would be better leaving municipal park benches strewn through the gardens and Domain, to allow

people’s quiet enjoyment and contemplation, rather than this grotesque alienation to the private events and party hire industry” (Needham 2013). Inner West Sydney residents of Annandale provide a finer grain example of residents deploying their right to be heard in relation the planning green space. In relation to plans changing for a local park one resident is was quoted as saying “The City of Sydney is committing highway robbery on their neighbours and there is no neighbourly goodwill” (Carey 2013). This situation is not used highlight who is right or wrong, but rather as an example of the passion, and willingness for citizens to have a say about their built environment. These examples provide insights at multiple scales to the importance of citizens being involved in the development of green structure. Firstly, it highlights the social, historical, and cultural significance of our green spaces. Similarly to the Royal Hunting Grounds of Paris, it demonstrates the way urban green space is appreciated by all levels of society from local resident, to community groups, to political leaders. Furthermore, from a spatial perspective these examples highlight the difficulty in balancing the competing forces of the city. Not only does open space have a social, cultural, and political dimension, it is also the point of economics, a site of conflict, and an example of how rigorous debate can help us all realise the value, and significance of all parts of the city.

ďżź Strategic Planning Hierarchy (NSW Government 2013c pp66)

NSW Planning White Paper The NSW Planning White Paper outlines proposed changes to the NSW Planning System, with the purpose to promote economic growth for the benefit of the entire community. The following is my review of key document chapters that identifies weaknesses, and highlights positive aspects of the proposal. Fundamentally the most significant proposal is the re-organisation and hierarchy of the New Planning System as shown in the adjacent diagram. Creating a responsibility hierarchy, and engaging with stakeholders at all levels will assist in the development and implementation of integrated plans. The New Planning System: A Shared Vision I welcome the first layer identified in the New Planning System is ‘A Shared Vision’ however I question the governments ability to understand what the shared vision is. The White Paper states “plans will be developed based on a vision shared by a well informed and properly engaged community, industry, and government” (NSW Government 2013c pp24). However, as I will discuss this is a current weakeness within planning. Chapter 3 - Delivery Culture I support the plans to provide a change action group to assist with the development and deployment of the delivery culture. Corporate change is a difficult process to manage, and can be the detriment of introducing new programs. Training, technology, and executive sponsorship are all required for the change to be successful, so it is good to see these too have been included

in the Key changes proposed for Delivery Culture (NSW Government 2013c pp34). Chapter 4 - Community Participation The White Paper section on Community Participation opens by stating “community participation in the preparation of plans and a vision for their local areas represents a key change in the new planning system. This means that the opportunity for the community to participate at the start of the planning process and on an ongoing basis will be prioritised and integral to setting the vision and ground rules for local areas” (NSW Government 2013c pp44). The earlier examples for community engagement in green structure has shown there is great potential for citizens to be involved, however the traditional delivery methods don’t work. The governments community participation brochure sets an ambitious target that “the new planing system in NSW will lead the way in Australia by giving you a legal right to upfront community participation - this will allow you to have a say when the long term planning ground rules are being set” (NSW Government 2013a). This statement alone, in my opinion, is enough to warrant the scrapping of the Draft Metropolitan Plan - See my recommendation #1 later in this document. After the new planning system has been implemented, and the communities rights have been guaranteed then a new discussion with participation can take place to identify what the real strategic objectives of Sydney shall be. Of course the Metropolitan Strategy has a role in educating and explaining to the community what the possibilities are, but it should be seen 9

Principle

Description

1. Partnership

The community is to be provided with opportunities to participate in planning

2. Accessibility

The community is to have access to information that is easy to read and understand

3. Early Involvement

The community is to be provided with opportunities to participate in strategic planning at an early stage before decisions are made

4. Right to be Informed

The community has a right to be informed about planning decisions that affect them

5. Proportionate

Community participation in development decisions is to be proportionate to the significance of the proposed development

6. Inclusiveness

Planning authorities are to seek the views of the community through participation methods that are inclusive and appropriate to the needs of the community

7. Transparency

Planning authorities are to make decisions in an open and transparent way and provide the community with reasons for their decisions, including how community views have been taken into account

Community Participation Charter Principles (NSW Government 2013a pp3) 10

as that - just one possibility, one direction that we could take the city. The brochure further outlines the principles to be included in the community Participation Charter as shown in the adjacent table. The role of Government then should be to highlight the possibilities, and engage in community leadership to help educate what is needed. Strategy and planning can then be done thought a consultive process of engagement. From the detailed contained in the brochure, I believe the principles, if implemented well, will deliver increased community engagement. However, the devil is in the lack-of-details. Without a written charter, and without the supporting council guidelines it is difficult to know the extent for participation. Will It Work? The Green Paper received 1,579 submissions (NSW Government 2013c pp19) representing only 0.037% of the 4.3 million people living in Sydney. The most significant obstruction to having an effective participatory planning system will be the governments inability to engage a wide range of the population. In comparison, consultations on the Vancouver City Plan Canada in the 1990s involved 100,000 residents, and included 20,000 people which equates to 4% of the cities population being surveyed directly. International leading social theorist David 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). It is clearly important, yet being neglected as the 0.037% participation in the green paper indicates. In order for the community to become engaged, we must begin to ask the right questions. The plethora of information available on the NSW Planning website is information overload, and would be impossible for the average citizen to distill in it’s current form. John Brokoff of NSW Planning and Infrastructure acknowledges the divide between the method of the Draft Metropolitan Plans creation, and the context the NSW Planning White Paper is establishing. Explaining the “draft metro strategy was not done on the same process being suggested by the white paper” but revealing that the department “could be swamped with submissions that the metro plan is not good enough, and they need to start again” (Brokoff 2013). The community do want to engage in their built environment, and there are timely examples of this happening now with Green Structure. Local residents are objecting to changing plans in Annandale, former Prime Ministers are advocating for the protection of The Domain, and Istanbulites are protesting about the commercial consumption of public space. Given the traditional methods of community engagement are failing to delivery an adequate representation from the community the big question then is, how to engage the community? The government, therefore must work to identify new methods to engage the community - see my recommendation #3, and #4. 11

Rural Area Diagram (NSW Government 2013b pp26) 12

Draft Metropolitan Strategy Fundamentally the Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney doesn’t plan to do anything spatially in relation to green structure. Rather it provides conceptual strategic ideas for what could be done in the future, and defers the details to other planning instruments. Within the strategy ‘City Shapers’ are designed “as places to bring the strategy to life” (Brokoff 2013) and I believe the concept is a successful method in communicating high level strategic ideas. The Balanced Growth section of the strategy acknowledges the Rural Areas as one of nine ‘City Shapers’ and as a part of Sydney’s metropolitan areas that “supports businesses and other enterprises including quarries and mines”. One of the key priorities, is to “identify an protect highvalue conservation lands, including National Parks” (NSW Government 2013b pp27) and the adjacent rural area diagram also highlights the drinking water catchments, and Blue Mountains as a green belt, and the coast line an as a Blue Belt. It is great that the rural areas have been identified as a ‘City Shaper’ and given some priority within this document, however this is not a new concept. The 1948-1951 County of Cumberland Plan proposed a Green Belt to constrain urban growth, however it was abandoned in 1960 as it was depending on Commonwealth funding of new satellite towns (Meyer 2009). The Metropolitan Strategy now lists objectives to ‘identify’ areas that require protection and lacks specificity. Surely given the history of NSW Planning there

should already be an understanding and identification areas as ‘high-value conservation land’. Therefore, I expect the government to more clearly articulate, and protect, what areas it sees as important for the state. This process also, should be part of a wide consultation with the local communities, see my recommendation #5. Priorities for Sydney’s Metropolitan Rural Area Undertake a strategic review for the ongoing management of the Metropolitan Rural Area Manage and monitor land for possible future extension of the MetropolitanUrban Area Support the function of the Metropolitan Urban Area to accommodate most of Sydney’s urban growth Balance the development of mineral resources and construction materials with the protection of other land uses Encourage renewable energy investment opportunitiesa Increase the productivity of agricultural and resource lands and grow associated employment opportunities Identify and protect high-value conservation lands, including National Parks Capitalise on the opportunities of international tourism in the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area to attract visitors to other areas Identify and protect priority green corridors. Rural Area Priorities (NSW Government 2013b pp27) 13

President Sarkozy speaking at the launch of Le Grand Paris (Kirkland 2011)

Example of how increases in density can embrace parklands (MVRDV)

Example of how increases in density can embrace waterways (MVRDV)

Learning From Paris & Others In 2007 the French President Nicolas Sarkozy launched a program for Architects to re-imagine Paris, titled Le Grand Paris the six month project involving ten teams set an open agenda. The call to arms was - it is up to all, elected representatives, citizens, and professionals to make the city more liveable, attractive, sustainable and humane. The ten teams published new and speculative ways to re-imagine and improve the city.

see speculative ideas, like some proposals from architects to enliven the public debate about how we should make Sydney better - See my recommendation #2. Imagine well thought out, evidence based proposals like MVRDV’s for Sydney - along the shores of the Harbour, or around the Centennial Parklands.

What we can take from this is the strong visionary leadership from the President, and the collective effort from the teams to understand Paris, in order to propose ways to make it better, to create a city ‘wished by all for the benefit of all’. Not surprisingly a number of proposals took an approach to enhance the existing green structure characteristics of Paris. Paris Plus petit, by MVRDV, envisioned a series of interventions for Paris including ‘Les Parcs Metropolitains’ which visualised ways to increase housing density around existing public amenity. The visualisations as shown here propose higher density living embracing parklands, and waterways of Paris (MVRDV 2009), a form of contrasting urbanism. This style of visual, and speculative proposal is just one suggestion on how Paris could be improved. The combination of 10 teams proposals provide an opportunity for the population to see and begin to understand how the city can grow in a sustainable way. The NSW Planning White paper suggests 3D models will be used by way of an online portal ‘e-planning’ to help the population understand proposed changes (NSW Government 2013c pp23). It would be ideal to

Building Envelopes Visualisation (NSW Government 2013c pp98)

The Urban Taskforce Australia, chaired by former Government Architect Chris Johnson, publishes a magazines that has used architectural firm ideas and visualisations to advocate for change in the built environment, however these ideas are sponsored by developers interests. Their release of Urban Ideas, with the tagline “A Public Interest Magazine from the Urban Taskforce Australia” (Urban Taskforce Australia 2013) is sponsored by Meriton, but aims to create excitement and thinking about improving the city. I believe the NSW Government can learn from the examples in Paris, and those of the Urban Taskforce by more deeply engaging Architects in working with the community to design speculative options for Sydney - that are for, and sponsored by the public, not private interests. See my recommendation #2. 15

Recommendations & Conclusion Reflecting upon the White Paper and Draft Metropolitan Strategy issues discussed herein, I would like to submit the following five recommendations to Government for consideration; 1. Put aside the Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney, and use it only as one of the possible options. The strategy does not use the process of community engagement outlined in the White Paper. There has been very little public engagement with the content (0.039% of the population). A new strategy should be a more inclusive and participatory process.

2. Launch a Government sponsored program for teams of Architects to reimagine Sydney. We need a method to critically engage a wider proportion of citizens in shaping the Metropolis Architects, as shown in Paris, have an ability to visualise and communicate speculative and exciting proposals, that can lead the public debate on the built environment and green structure. The White Paper, and Strategy documents are currently too abstract to capture the imagination.

3. Investigate how to successfully increase citizenry participation through the redesign of Government engagement strategies. To date the level of public engagement with the suggested changes has been minimal.

5. Identify green areas of regional and state community significance Find out from citizens what areas are really important to people and protect them.

4. Investigate technology as a tool for direct or participatory democracy Given the issues in understanding what the common will is, there may be opportunities for technology to distill the public consensus. A trial within one or two council areas would allow for the system to be tested. The outputs would allow measurable and transparent understanding of what the population want.

I believe by focusing on government leadership, professional advocacy, and effective public engagement, objectives for building a better Sydney will be achieved. However, it must be a collaborative effort, citizens must be involved if we are to delivery a fair, equitable, and socially beneficial built environment. Improved communication and leadership from the government, increased transparency and engagement with the community, and continued advocacy from architects and planners will create an environment where citizens become our primary â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;city shapersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, working together for planning a better city. 17

Endnotes 1(Graus & Holm 2013) References Artemel, A. 2013, The Istanbul Protests And The Future Of Public Space, Architizer, viewed 03.06.13, <http://www.architizer. com/en_us/blog/dyn/89037/the-istanbul-protests-and-the-future-of-public-space/#.Ua0hzpWlqap>. Brokoff, J. 2013, ‘Draft Metropolitant Strategy for Sydney’, Lecture, viewed 16.05.13. 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. Carey, A. 2013, ‘Annandale Residents Rally To Save Park’, Inner West Courier. Eruz, E. 2013, Istanbul’s Fight for Its Public Spaces, Sustainable Cities Collective, viewed 04.06.13, <http:// sustainablecitiescollective.com/ermaneruz/155051/istanbuls-fight-its-public-spaces>. Fowkes, F. 1788, ‘Sketch & description of the settlement at Sydney Cove Port Jackson’, <http://www.nla.gov.au/apps/ cdview/?pi=nla.map-nk276-e>. Graus, P. & Holm, D. 2013, ‘UTS Public Lecture: Sydney - Bigger and Better, not Bigger and Bigger ‘, Lecture, viewed 24.05.13. 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. Kirkland, S. 2011, Le Grand Paris - Part 1: The Launch, viewed 05.06.13, <http://stephanekirkland.com/le-grand-parispart-1/>. Meyer, B. 2009, ‘Future Sydney - A City Of Cities’. MVRDV 2009, ‘MVRDV presents vision for Grand Paris 2030 ‘, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyvSzmBkg9s>. Needham, K. 2013, ‘Gardens Not For Raising Cash: Keating’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 26.05.13. NSW Government 2013a, Community Participation Brochure, viewed 03.06.13, <http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/ newplanningsystem>. NSW Government 2013b, Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney to 2031, NSW Government, Sydney. NSW Government 2013c, A New Planning System for NSW White Paper, NSW Government. Peake, B. 2005, Photograph of Sydney, authors own. Plazy, G. 2003, Paris: History, Architecture, Art, Lifestyle, in Detail, Thames & Hudson, London. Urban Taskforce Australia 2013, ‘EcoDensity Sydney’, Urban Ideas, no. April 2013.

Ben Peake ben@benpeake.com