THINK PIECES

Elle Davidson (Balanggarra) Aboriginal Planning Lecturer

Dialogue about Country is flooding the built environment industry and consuming professionals and teams at unprecedented rates. Many are grappling with what this means for their projects and are confronted by their lack of confidence in engaging in these yarns. There is a widening realisation that our education system has failed us and created a noticeable gap in truly understanding Country, community and culture. I would propose that there are lessons to be learned through cultural pedagogies to facilitate processes that are coming good way to Country.

Coming good way means having the intentions for Country and her health. This entails deep listening that can enhance thinking to how built practices incorporate and embed Country and First Nations design principles in project work. New concepts, principles and theories are constantly shifting expectations requiring industry to adapt and learn. This promotes the emergence of First Nations specialists and leaders to guide a broader community of professionals into forging new pathways in our projects.

The Draft Connecting with Country framework from the Government Architect New South Wales encourages Country centered design achieved through listening to knowledge holders and embedding translations of what is expressed into a project. The health of Country attributable to those who can help you listen to Country, is elevated to an integral part of any project team. I have witnessed incredible shifts in value placed upon this knowledge and these voices, something that has been silenced for too long. The shift in dialogue and levels of surprise from Traditional Custodians and knowledge holders is clear as they are brought into a process that once locked them out has been a real privilege.

Professionals who have been in industry for decades are now confronting colonisation and exposing themselves to truth telling at levels that differ from the past. It is difficult to quantify the impact of this new paradigm on budget, timeframes, methodologies and outcomes as this is a rapidly evolving space that profes-

sionals have not quantified previously. This is leading to the most important shift within ourselves. The journey of addressing our own colonised thinking requires questions of the cultural frameworks that each of us possess along with inherent biases and assumptions. We are dealing with something that is personal and requires humility. These are not distant concepts that we can learn from other specialists, these are deep rooted ways that each individual must question.

Our education system has failed us in preparing for this journey. We are not equipped with the skills to engage in this process or understand why this is necessary. Although there is a wide range of resources and opportunities for self-directed learning, there is a real lack of safe places to engage in this process guided by Aboriginal people that are specific to the built environment industry.

Within our urbanism units, we have identified layered learning opportunities for students to engage in this dialogue and open themselves up to this process. We regularly invite guests to present their work to open dialogue or yarn and encourage students to engage and pose questions. One of our guests, Rob Appo, a Minjungbal man from the Bundjalung Nation in Northern NSW, notes a genuine thirst for knowledge amongst students. Our yarn about his work in collaboration with Tweed and Byron Shire Councils to set up a new process for working with cultural heritage sites. He noted that not a fortnight passes without people enquiring about the work they are pioneering and how deeply engaged and committed the planners are to achieving better outcomes for Country.

A large catalyst for these learning opportunities is centred around work occurring in Western Sydney and how Country, community and culture are being embedded into planning and design. The Western Parkland City and plans for the future Aerotropolis will cause irreversible changes with the development of a new city and region on Dharug Country. Through the lens of the Draft Connecting with Country framework, project teams are required to start with Country and listen to knowledge holders. However, the Dharug people do not have a legislated voice for Country and the complexities of working in this region are difficult to navigate. Importantly for these voices, legislative mechanisms are critical to ensure professional practice acknowledge, understand and embed these engagement throughout the whole project.

The Recognise Country: guidelines for development in the Aerotropolis are providing strong foundations to shift thinking and embed Aboriginal perspectives early in the planning process. A new chapter in the Western Sydney Aerotropolis Development Control Plan is a legislative mandate that requires projects to recognise Country through the cultural landscape, built form, language and naming. These requirements were developed in collaboration with Traditional Custodians and support from cultural advisors Michael Mossman, Dillon Kombumerri, Daniele Hromek and Tanya Koeneman.

At the recent NSW Planning Institute of Australia awards, the Recognise Country: guidelines for development in the Aerotropolis received the Presidents Award. This firmly cemented the work as a leading practice guide for planners and professionals in the built environment. It was a great pleasure to share this moment with Dharug Traditional Custodians.

Our urbanism students have actively engaged with these guidelines and principles by applying to their future or current projects. From studios to urban form, design to engagement and policies and processes, students are increasingly given the opportunity to understand the broad considerations of Country. Students have commented on how vital this teaching equips them for engaging deeply with Aboriginal perspectives through culturally rich pedagogical learning environments.

The urbanism group is leading the conversation on these issues and we will continue to create cultural safe spaces for rich and deep dialogue about Country, community and culture. Developing capacity amongst students to embark on their own personal journey of change is a critical and exciting focus across our units of study. This focus encourages individuals to develop personally-connected intentions and attitudes when working in this space and an approach of coming good way to Country.

Parenting in Proximity to Others: The Importance of Transitions, Temporalities and Trajectories.

Jennifer L. Kent Senior Research Fellow

Introduction and Background Healthy built environments are often conceptualised as higher density environments. For example, higher residential density has been associated with increased uptake of physical activity, more social interaction within the community and with providing better access to healthy food options.

For many Australians, and particularly in some stages of life, the cultural and practical default is the detached dwelling as a preference. Living in density throughout the whole life course therefore challenges the status quo, and requires transition in Australian cities. To facilitate a transition that realises the health benefits associated with density, and minimises any harm from disruption, it is imperative to understand the experiences and identified barriers to higher density living, particularly for groups traditionally associated with lower density housing (Raynor 2018). Parents of young children represent one such group (Easthope et al. 2011), and this study contributes to a growing body of qualitative research that records the experiences of parents in density (for example Kerr et al. 2021; Andrews et al. 2018, Andrews et al. 2019; Opit et al. 2021). Its points of departure are the structural and cultural barriers to parenting in density identified by previous research. Previous research demonstrates that density in Australia is not designed to accommodate families. Bathrooms are too small, balconies are hazardous and common areas are uninviting for play. Neighbours unaccustomed to children living in density resent the intrusion of toys, bikes and prams in common areas, and parents are concerned about conflict with neighbours over the normal noises of childhood. Two additional and very specific obstacles need to be added to this established litany of barriers and both relate to the actual process of densification in Australian cities. These are related to the timing of both

Andrews, F., J. Shelley, S. Rich and A. James (2018). “Mothers’ ideals and experiences of raising children in inner and outer suburban Melbourne, Australia.” Community, Work and Family 21(1): 17-32. Andrews, F. J., E. Warner and B. Robson (2019). “High-rise parenting: experiences of families in private, high-rise housing in inner city Melbourne and implications for children’s health.” Cities and Health 3(1-2): 158-168. Easthope, H. and A. Tice (2011). “Children in Apartments: Implications for the Compact City.” Urban Policy and Research 29(4): 415-434. Kerr, S.-M., N. Klocker and C. Gibson (2021). “From backyards to balconies: cultural norms and parents’ experiences of home in higher-density housing.” Housing Studies 36(3): 421-443. Mason, M. and N. Virgona (2021). Healthy Higher Density for Kids: A Qualitative Study. Sydney, New South Wales Health. Opit, S., R. Kearns, K. Witten and E. Fergusson (2021). “Density in the Suburbs: Families with Children Adapting to Living in a Medium Density Social Housing Development.” Urban Policy and Research. Raynor, K. (2018). “Social representations of children in higher density housing: enviable, inevitable or evil?” Housing Studies 33(8): 1207-1226.

Method These understandings are informed by a report associated with the Healthy Higher Density for Children project – an examination of the perceived health effects associated with living in higher density housing for children (0-5 years) in the City of Parramatta (CoP) local government area (LGA). Qualitative data was collected using semi-structured interviews with 20 parents. Parents identified positive and negative experiences of living in an apartment with young children (Mason et al. 2021).

Results The first aspect of temporality that is problematic is that the temporality of childhood is at odds with the timeframes of the property development and planning systems, which detracts from the experience of raising children in density.

It may seem obvious, however for families to live well in a higher density environment, density itself needs to exist as a structure. The fact that Parramatta contains higher density housing reflects a rapid process of urban activation initiated by the rezoning of commercial land to residential uses. The construction of apartment buildings to fulfill this opportunity has dragged on, as construction in a developer driven planning system tends to do, echoing the highs and lows of the housing market. The legacy is that the area is a perpetual hive of building activity. Of relevance to families living in ‘Parramatta under transition’ is that this creates an environment of instability, and experiences of the negative externalities of construction such as dust, noise, and dangerous footpaths. These material outputs of the densification process make parenting in density difficult. The noise interrupts day time sleep, and the constant dust forces windows closed. Walkability of the immediate neighbourhood environment is compromised by the clutter of parked construction vehicles and damages the footpath itself. While the impact is seemingly temporary to the development industry and the planning process, to the timeline of childhood its experience is a lifetime. This impact needs to be considered seriously in assessing the staging of development.

The second aspect of temporality flagging a potential barrier to densification through the life course is that many study participants indicated their ambition is to transition out of density towards a larger home as children age. Participants described a sense that their ability to care for children not yet of school age was not compromised by space limitations, but as children grow this may become problematic:

I think we feel that we would be denying our child something if we raised her in an apartment setting. I think that kids need places to play and I think that apartment buildings don’t have that. They don’t have a backyard, they don’t have fresh air.

For many study participants living in density was temporary, yet for the potential of density to be realised, our cities need these parents to remain.

Conclusion In conclusion, these two aspects of temporality relate to both structural and cultural components of the densification process that will need to be addressed for the transition to higher density cities in Australia to become a reality. By highlighting a temporal dimension to the shift, new avenues to encourage living in density through the life course can be explored. Odyssey