Wong Ly-Jane, 378629
„Melbourne 2030‟, the highly anticipated strategic metropolitan plan for Melbourne, was going to reintegrate town planning with government action. Its development was borne with the promise of greater community participation and power in the planning process (Mees 2003). A comprehensive three-stage method for public consultation was devised, but in the three years that followed (Mees 2003), the lack of transparency in the planning process meant there was little to evaluate or discuss. The plan for consultation was eventually abandoned. As a result of the topdown, exclusionary method of planning, the report‟s release was received with widespread apathy. The same year work on „Melbourne 2030‟ began, local residents of the Brabant neighbourhood in Brussels were constructing a tower to be used as a public meeting and exhibition facility. Facilitated by an organization called City Mine(d), various stakeholders within the community were brought together and involved in both the design and construction of what later became a landmark of Brabant (PEPRAV 2009). The contrast between the two realities of community participation is significant, in that one achieves progress and the other stagnates. Melbourne is the latter. With its history of ineffectiveness, apathy is now the common sentiment towards planning (Walker, 1992). This essay will discuss the participatory framework of the City Mine(d) organisation, and examine how empowering communities may alleviate the prevalent culture of disillusionment in Melbourne‟s planning and political scene. City Mine(d) was established in 1997 by urban activists (Moyersoen 2010). It is a non-profit organisation based in Brussels that promote and support independentlyinitiated projects in urban spaces. Through mobilising local support networks, it removes the structural and bureaucratic obstacles, such as site authorization and funding, which often prevent initiators from realising their projects. Additionally, it acts as a facilitator by encouraging a “participatory platform” (PEPRAV 2009, pp.38), in which project initiators and stakeholders at different scales in the city may communicate directly in a non-hierarchal environment (Moyersoen 2010). The interaction between the formal and informal, local and metropolitan, state and civil sectors in Brussels forms a “transversal” (Moyersoen 2010, pp.156) network, typified by collective urban action and awareness. The strength and density of City Mine(d)‟s networks advocate the importance of inclusive governance in effecting urban action. City Mine(d) empowers Brussels‟ urban entrepreneurs with the autonomy to interact with the city‟s urban fabric and in doing so, cultivates an urban civil society that is interested in and engaged with the urban environment (Moyersoen 2010). In Melbourne, disappointing governments with vested interests has led to disillusionment amongst its citizens, resulting in greater ignorance of public issues. Without the power 1
Wong Ly-Jane, 378629
to influence decisions, there is no incentive to participate (Walker 1992). Whilst City Mine(d) forms the leadership necessary for creative and visionary initiatives to occur in Brussels (Landry 2000), Melbourne is a city with unexploited, politically-restrained cultural capital. Successful cities rely on urban creativity, innovation and spontaneity to foster an identity and to ensure progressive urban development (Hamdi 2004). Thus, in a globalised world, it is vital that Melbourne‟s citizens not only have the freedom to express and conceptualise their ideas, but also, that the government make a choice to value and respond to them (Landry 2000). City Mine(d)‟s success may well be a result of the Flemish proclivity to political involvement; yet, Melbourne also has a history of urban activism, involving solidarity of effort amongst diverse social groups. Plans in the late 1960s to introduce high-rise estates into inner-city Carlton led to a fervor of resident associations emerging against the Victorian government‟s „radical‟ redevelopment plans (Howe 2005). The protest against the Housing Commission‟s „scorched earth policy‟ in 1968 had representation from fourteen associations, including support from tertiary-educated professionals, unions, religious sects and ethnic organisations (Howe, 2005). Urban activism in Melbourne thus far has been dominated by reactive, instead of creative behaviour. Citizens are less likely to support a movement than to oppose one (Marshall 1986). However, reactive movements are short-lived, lasting merely as long as the cause (Gray 1992). It is another result of Australia‟s top-down planning, in which those with “the loudest voice or political clout always [win]” (Hamdi 2004, pp.105), forcing its citizens through tiresome processes of aggressive reaction. The lack of sustained community effort prevents networks from growing and strengthening as it did in Brussels, and essentially, the outcomes from such activism renders only temporary results. Fortunately, Melbourne, dubbed Australia‟s arts and culture center, has a population teeming with creative and intelligent minds, as well as the facilities and services to coordinate participatory action. Events, like Melbourne Open House, and facilities, like Melbourne Hub, cater to an urban-conscious and socially entrepreneurial population, offering networking opportunities for individuals and organisations that are passionate about Melbourne‟s urban environment. The government is highly supportive of Melbourne‟s creative image. Creative Spaces, an initiative that rents out vacant city buildings for creative purposes, works in collaboration with the City of Melbourne to offer affordable inner-city facilities to artists (City of Melbourne 2011). The announcement of the newly opened „River Studios‟ in West Melbourne was accompanied by supportive comments from Victoria‟s Premier and Minister of the Arts, Ted Baillieu; He cited the significant contribution creative industries make on Melbourne‟s local economy and the need to “retain Melbourne‟s reputation…as a place for inspiration, innovation and experimentation” (City of Melbourne 2011). The same pride is not afforded to creative urban initiatives, which are subject to an excess of procedural barriers (Moyersoen 2010). Local councils should exploit the strong creative culture already in place, allowing it to benefit more than Melbourne‟s image and economy, but its physical form and urban development as well.
2
Wong Ly-Jane, 378629
“No one can shape urban change alone” (Landry 2000, pp.3) and no one body should, as evidenced by the failure of Melbourne 2030. The customary use of tokenistic community participation (Mees 2003) in Melbourne‟s planning decisions makes redundant the necessary relationship between the community and the planner. City Mine(d) reveals a local, network-oriented method of enabling inclusive governance in Brussels, and is inspiring in its success. In order to establish a similar organisation in Melbourne, Melbournians should realize that apathy towards the city‟s urban issues contributes nothing but an excuse for the government to continue under delivering on planning promises. Sustainable urban change is only achievable through the sustained passion and efforts of its citizens. Melbourne has the cultural and social infrastructure to build a network of creative, empowered organisations; we just need less reaction, and more action.
3
Wong Ly-Jane, 378629
City of Melbourne 2011, City of Melbourne, Melbourne, viewed 22 May 2011, < http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/AboutCouncil/MediaReleases/Pages/Anewcreativehom eforMelbournesartists.aspx> Gray, J.M 1992. „Citizen Participation on a Large Scale: The Lambton Harbour Development, Wellington, New Zealand‟ in Munro-Clark, M., Citizen Participation in Government, Hale & Iremonger, Sydney, NSW., pp.151-175. Hamdi, N 2004. Small Change, Earthscan, London., pp. 98. Howe, R 2005. „The Spirit of Melbourne: 1960s Urban Activism in Inner-City Melbourne‟ in O‟Hanlo, S & Luckins, T. Go! Melbourne in the Sixties, Circa, Melbourne., pp.218-230. Landry, C 2000. „Rediscovering Urban Creativity: why are some cities successful?‟, Chapter 1 in The Creative City: a toolkit for urban innovators, Earthscan, London., pp.3-19. Marshall, L.L.F 1986. „A New Design Decision-Making Process’ , Chapter 5 of Action by Design, The American Society of Landscape Architects, Washinton D.C., pp. 95. Mees, P 2003., „Paterson‟s Curse: the Attempt to Revive Metropolitan Planning in Melbourne‟, Urban Policy and Research, vol.21, no.3, pp. 287-299. Moyersoen, J 2010. „Autonomy and inclusive urban governance: A case of glocal action: City Mine(d) in Brussels‟, in Moulaert, F. et al, Can neighbourhoods save the city? Routledge, New York., pp. 153-167. PEPRAV (European Platform for Alternative Practice and Research on the City), 2009, Urban/Act, PEPRAV, European Community, viewed 9 May, 2011, < www.peprav.net/tool/IMG/pdf/URBAN-ACT_release.pdf>. Walker, G 1992. „Participation by Initiative and Referendum: Could it Work in Australia?‟ in Munro-Clark, M., Citizen Participation in Government, Hale & Iremonger, Sydney, NSW., pp.3753.
4