London Underground - reimagined!

Alternates to the London Underground map

The Death and Life of...

Planning for our future (figuratively speaking)...

Urban greening in high density environments

Creating 'Vertical Forests' in high density residential developments

Victorian Residential Zones: Reformed or Re-form

By Jonathan Halaliku.

Source: Herald Sun, 2014.
The older I get the more cynical I become.  So what of this cynicism…? Well, on the on the 27th of March the Victorian Government gazetted Amendment VC110 to much…err…avail. Touted as residential zone reforms that ‘get the balance right’,[1] and in opposition to my middle aged cynicism, I dove into the ‘reformed zones’ with optimism.

Like all good narratives, each provision of the reformed zones has a role to play. With affordability and land supply at the forefront of our minds, the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ) was centre stage, and partnered by a new minimum garden area requirement.[2] Side stage, new definitions were inserted into Clause 72 to define the ‘garden area’. Transitional Provisions stood ready to cover any inequity, and the General, Mixed Use, and even the Township Zones were casted for an appearance. All of this, by the way, was against the background of the recent ‘Better Apartment Design Standards’ (BADS), the ‘Managing Residential Advisory Committee’ findings, ‘Refresh Plan Melbourne’, and the ‘Infrastructure Victoria 30 Year Strategy’. The scene was set.

All the right things were alluded to in the explanatory report. The relevant sections of the SPPF were wheeled out. Whether it was Clause 11.02-1 or Clause 16.01-4, the strategic justifications where humming to the background of housing affordability and land supply.  Lo and behold, as I made my way through the provisions I was left with that familiar feeling of ‘town planning deflation’.

Sure, the deletion of purposes from the NRZ[3] water down the sacrosanct purposes of the NIMBY shield, and sure the addition of 32.09-1[4] provides another mechanism for Council to specify objectives for particular areas, and sure the introduction and incorporation of garden area requirements (via a lot size sliding scale and mandatory inclusion and trigger within 32.09-3) was a ‘nifty’ piece of policy drafting.

But my middle aged cynicism asks “what did we really get here?” The removal of the two dwelling restriction in the NRZ (and maximum building height of 9 metres) essentially rights a wrong. Existing LPPF and supporting character studies[5] already achieve the garden area requirements when applied correctly by Responsible Authorities. I couldn’t, and still can’t, help to think the reformed zones were a sideshow to what is the main meal.

I ask, has the reformed zones really addressed the key underlying issue identified by the MRDAC[6] when they quite rightly stated:

“…One of the key findings of the Committee is the inappropriate application of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone in some municipalities due to the way in which it was approved. There was a clear lack of rigour and transparency in the early application of the zones and it was not until the RZSAC process that questions were asked about why and how the Neighbourhood Residential Zone had been applied in such a way, and as the default zone in many municipalities. Instances where the application of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone has been applied as the default zone should be further reviewed.”[7] ?

Whilst the removal of density restrictions and the pleasing addition of garden area requirement is now included, the underlying issue of the extent of the NRZ application (and, worryingly, the clear lack of rigour and transparency in the early application of the zones) remain a burden on the composition of Melbourne’s residential zoning.  

Instead of the ‘reform’ touted in Amendment VC110, I believe a ‘reform’ or ‘re-balance’ of our residential zone composition (across all Municipal boundaries) should be our priority. In place of accepting that the ‘horse has bolted’ in the application of the NRZ across our city, we should be asking which neighbourhoods deserve the NRZ classification and why. Given the restrictive nature of the NRZ (even after watering down of the purposes) and the breadth of its application (up to 70% in some inner and middle band Municipalities), we should think carefully and with caution before accepting their application and existence as read.

 To facilitate the growth of our city and the needs of our future citizens, we need to be brave enough to return to first principles and establish what features really deserve protection (as supported by objective empirical analysis) by applying the correct statutory mechanisms best suited to balance the certainty sought by stakeholders. Tinkering around the edges and righting wrongs of an ill-applied NRZ is good, but it is not the reform we need. 


[1] Reformed Zones 2017, Minister Message, The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning 2017, p.1
[2] Applause from the leafy areas of the well serviced inner suburban elite. Echoes of applause from the outer and middle ring areas.  
[3] ‘To limit opportunities for increased residential development’ and ‘To implement neighbourhood character policy and adopted neighbourhood character guidelines’
[4] Inserts a new sub clause specifying that a schedule to the zone must contain various objectives to be achieved for an area. 
[5] Where active, and up to date and applied correctly.
[6] Managing Residential Development Advisory Committee
[7] Managing Residential Development, ‘Advisory Committee Report’ Executive Summery14 July 2016 p 2

Melbourne and Climate Change

By Julia Bell.

Source: Anna Floods, 2016
In recent months (and years) Melbourne has experienced some extreme weather. Some of these bizarre and frightening weather events have included experiencing a month’s rain in a day (which has led to widespread flooding, road closures and disruption), wind speeds of more than 100 kms per hour (which had led to severe property damage and threat to life) and increasing summer temperatures (with BOM predicting the average number of days above 35 degrees to increase from 9 days to 26 days by 2070).

'Melburnians should prepare for more extreme heat with double the number of hot days, less rain and harsher fire conditions in coming decades', (BOM, 2017) the Victorian State Government has warned in analysis prepared for the Andrews Government. This paints a frightening picture of Melbourne's future climate by stating that transport infrastructure will be vulnerable to flooding and heat stress, along with longer and more severe bushfires and pressure on hospitals from heatwaves. 

So what does this lead to in a city like Melbourne? Road and public transport closures, damage to infrastructure, property, power outages, poor water quality, lack of water resources, and most scarily, threat to life. In a city where most of the time we go about our day to day lives without fuss, how do we so quickly get over and forget these events? Why is there constant ignorance when it comes to addressing climate change seriously? And how can we have a more active role to change our future as urban dwellers?
Our climate is changing, largely due to the observed increases in human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), agriculture and land clearing. Changes over the 20th century include increases in global average air and ocean temperature, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global sea levels (Australian Government, 2017).

And if we continue to ignore climate change:
Melbourne's temperature could rise by as much as 2.6 degrees above the 1986 to 2005 average by 2070, with sea levels up by as much as half a metre (The Age, 2016).

As Melbourne urban dwellers, what can we do in response? To avoid changing our habits, perhaps we could either keep a rubber ducky in our cars for flooding emergencies, or, turn our streets into canals like Venice! Potentially, we could design human bubbles to roll around in with air conditioning, clean air and some snacks in the case of a prolonged weather event.

But seriously Melbournians, we cannot ignore these changes any longer. By changing our daily habits, travelling more sustainably and reducing carbon emissions, surely the world’s most liveable city can stay. It is worth thinking about how small personal everyday changes can benefit the environment and build a more sustainable and healthy habits for beautiful global cities. 

Christchurch Rising

By Brodie Blades. 



On 22 February 2011, the New Zealand city of Christchurch suffered the most damaging of a series of earthquakes that had affected the wider Canterbury region since late 2010 –a magnitude 6.3 earthquake that struck a mere 10km from the city’s centre.  Over ten fleeting seconds, the built form fabric of Christchurch was irrevocably transformed as structures collapsed and soil liquefied. Many buildings that did not instantly topple would soon fall shortly after, as structural safety audits and a rolling program of demolition transformed much of Christchurch’s downtown core into little more than rubble. 185 people from 17 nationalities lost their lives in New Zealand’s fifth-deadliest natural disaster.

Yet with every tragedy comes opportunity, and the tragedy of Christchurch’s 2011 earthquake is no different. Rather than allow itself to be defined and overcome by natural disaster, Christchurch is instead actively employing town planning and urban design to capitalise upon a rare opportunity  to completely reimagine it’s urban fabric. To better understand this, I’ve headed ‘on the ground’ to Christchurch to explore the key planning and urban design initiatives underway right now as part of Christchurch’s rising.

The Numbers

Natural disaster recovery is an inherently complex phenomenon to document. However, from a built form/property perspective, the gravity of the situation that faced the city of Christchurch post-quake is perhaps best understood through the following facts and figures: 
  • The estimated built form recovery price tag is $40 billion (as of April 2013), and approximately $33b of this is covered by insurance;
  • The ETA for complete economic recovery for the New Zealand economy is approximately 50 to 100 years;
  • 130,000 insurance claims arose from the February 22 event alone;
  • The latest available rebuild expenditure estimate is approximately $100m per week, according to the Canterbury Employers Chamber of Commerce  (August 2016);
  • Approximately 100,000 dwellings required demolition (or, about 1 dwelling per 3 residents);
  • Approximately 45% of downtown Christchurch’s building stock of 3,000 had restricted access following the event; and
  • The official rebuild ‘end year’ is estimated as being 2026.
Most tellingly, however, is that the population growth of Christchurch immediately fell by approximately 2.4% (compared to a historic annual population growth of 1% per annum) – a trend that continued to ultimately allow the New Zealand city of Wellington to replace Christchurch as New Zealand’s second most populous urban area.

On the Ground

I touched down in Christchurch in early March 2017, more than six years since the events of 22 February 2011. Despite this time, the ‘on the ground’ condition in Christchurch still bears the scars of the intensity and tragedy of that day. Much of Christchurch’s central business district is still comprised of rubble, interspersed only by the occasional husk of a building yet to be demolished.

Top – Rubble within the core of downtown Christchurch
Centre – ‘185 Chairs’; an ephemeral monument to the 185 fatalities of the February 2011 quake
Right – The façade of a former building is braced precariously against a stack of shipping containers in downtown Christchurch
(Source: Blades, B. 2017)
Moving closer toward the core of Christchurch, the spire-less remains of Christchurch’s cathedral (perhaps the most ‘notable’ architectural victim of the quakes) remains hoarded off from the public, effectively preserving the structure in time as a snapshot of the gravity of the quake event.

Despite the conditions, there is still a strong sense of ‘normal’ within the core of the city as construction workers, office employees, residents and tourists alike continue to attend to their daily needs. The local tourist tram continues to run, and continues to proceed past new buildings cheek-by-jowl with rubble piles within the same streetscape.

The Christchurch tourist tram rumbles past rubble in downtown Christchurch. The remnants of the Christchurch cathedral can be seen in the background of this image
(Source: Blades, B. 2017)
The intangible ‘heart’ of central Christchurch is also evident within the broader central precinct centred on the Avon River, where the ‘Re:Start Mall’ (an interim but buzzing local centre crafted entirely from repurposes shipping containers) and the Canterbury Earthquake Memorial (recently opened in February this year) fulfil much-needed social and spiritual roles within the core of the city.

The Plan

Christchurch is capitalising upon the opportunity afforded to it by the tragedy of the quake event to reimagine its urban fabric and spatial design by way of the 'Christburch Rebuild Masterplan'. The masterplan aspires to achieve a 'low and compact' city and includes the following key elements: 

·       Parkland: The creation of a compact central city ‘framed’ by parkland (in much the same way as the Adelaide CBD). Known primarily as the ‘East Frame’ and ‘South Frame’, the two tracts of open parkland will combine with the river Avon to ring the CBD of Christchurch and ‘fix the glut’ of commercial space that characterised the downtown core prior to the quake event.

·       Building Heights: Building heights will be capped at a maximum of 28m (or approximately 7 commercial storeys), although some exceptions may be made in some areas subject to approval (such as for hotels where close to convention centre facilities);

·       Central Core: The heart of Christchurch will be centred on an existing pedestrian/tram mall, which will be promoted as the retail hub of the centre through flanking mixed-use development consisting of ground floor retail uses and upper storey commercial space;

·       Diverse Services: The masterplan will include a brand new state-of-the-art convention centre (large enough to host three events simultaneously), a replacement stadium, a new music centre and grouping of Christchurch’s emergency management services and health services into a separate, central precincts;

·       Places for People: Cathedral Square (home of the Christchurch Cathedral) will be retained as the civic heart of the city, but reimagined as a pedestrian space to include new grassed areas and landscaping and a new public library. The square will also be completely closed to vehicular traffic. Further afield, new pedestrian and cycling linkages will be created through closing roads to traffic (or slowing traffic in streets) and the banks of the Avon River will be upgraded to facilitate increased pedestrian and cycling linkages to the core of central Christchurch; and

Ingrained Design: Importantly, the implementation of the masterplan will be overseen by a panel of representatives from local authorities (Christchurch City Council, the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Agency, and Ngai Tahu (Maori cultural body) to oversee every individual application for planning consent. 

The Christchurch Rebuild Masterplan (Source: stuff.co.nz,)
The Progress

Despite the sheer gravity of the situation faced by the people of Christchurch and New Zealand following the events of 2011, the ‘on the ground’ progress towards achievement of the plan is obvious and impressive. The ‘East Frame’ parkland has been cleared and reserved for its future parkland role, and distinct progress has been made toward the revitalisation of Christchurch’s central mall through new built form and public realm upgrades.

The River Avon has been woven into the core of central Christchurch through public realm upgrades that ‘invite’ interaction with the river, such as seating, sculpture and informal resting spaces.
The Avon River, with new public realm upgrades. New construction is underway in the background of this image 
(Source: Blades, B. 2017)

Importantly, the Canterbury Earthquake Memorial for the victims of the events of 2011 is now complete, and has been fittingly designed to occupy a secluded and central location within the heart of central Christchurch. 

The Canterbury Earthquake Memorial, on the banks of the Avon River
(Source: Blades, B. 2017)

Finally – and perhaps most significantly – there is little to suggest that the rebuild is ‘flogging a dead horse’. Rather, it is the opposite. The streets of Christchurch’s core are alive with activity despite the intensive construction program surrounding it. Shopfront vacancies did not seem atypically high (as one would perhaps expect, given the circumstances). There is nothing to suggest it would be uncomfortable or unsafe to move freely though the central city (with the obvious exception of demolition zones or construction sites). All of which are remarkable achievements for a city faced with the circumstances that Christchurch has endured.

Construction underway on ‘The Terrace’ in downtown Christchurch. Progress (left) verse the vision (right) 
(Source:  stuff.co.nz)
Conclusion

With every tragedy comes opportunity, and – whilst tragic – Christchurch’s February 2011 earthquake has at the very least provided the people of Christchurch an opportunity to achieve a shared future through reimagination of the urban fabric.

Any design vision requires the buy in of diverse sectors, interests and demographics to effect change, and - whilst there is no doubt still a long way to go before Christchurch makes a complete built form recovery - the overwhelming impression of the rebuild is that Christchurch is a community completely committed to rebuilding a new, shared built form future.

That the people of Christchurch can show such determination in confronting circumstances to reimagine and implement their built form future is testament not only to the resilience and commitment of this community, but in some ways also testament to the potential of urban design and planning to unite and effect positive change.

Have you been to Christchurch since the 2010/2011 earthquakes? What has your experience been?


Further Reading:

-          The Christchurch Rebuild: https://www.ccc.govt.nz/the-rebuild

Is ‘terror-proofing’ cities the next challenge facing urban planners and designers?

By Julia Moiso.

Source: BBC

The latest unfortunate terror attack in London is the fifth high-profile urban attack in eight months by an assailant who has used a vehicle as a deadly weapon, and comes two months after Melbourne experienced the same horror. Across recent media, terror experts have claimed that the latest London attack is the most recent example of a dangerous emerging terror trend in which an everyday object (such as  a motor vehicle) instead becomes a shocking weapon.

This highlights the dangerous and alarming fact that humans and vehicles are in an entirely different leagues, as vehicles were created to be a motorised ‘bigger and better’ mode of transport anda source of power and force that humans simply cannot compete with. A mechanical concept that has evidently has been abused by people in order to cause harm and terror.

The question arises: does this bring about a new wave of challenges for the modern urban planner? If cities are designed so that people and vehicles synonymously co-exist, how do we plan such for a contingency when there is a harmful disturbance of this coexistence?

In the past, increased CCTV and additional police surveillance have typically been adopted by authorities, but this often ’fuels the fire’ as it is a known motive that people who cause terror are drawn to busy pedestrianised areas in order to create the most impact.

So does it come down to the physical context of cities? With the rise in demand for cities to produce quality public spaces, should additional urban design provisions (beyond bollards) or smart technology systems be sought as a measure to prevent vehicles from being able to come within close proximity to public spaces? 

Perhaps more consideration should be given to revolutionising the way that transport functions within inner cities. Barcelona, for example, is considered one of the smartest cities in the world and the contrast between the historic built form and the new age built form within Barcelona works in perfect harmony. With extensive bike paths segregating the road from the footpath, old gothic streets that cannot foster vehicle travel and large public squares eliminates many opportunities for vehicles to impede on public space.

It is important to note that there will always be a margin for error in the way that cities are built, function and operate. But by adhering to good quality and successful urban design in metropolitan areas, perhaps such threats can be minimised and we can begin to minimise the frequency of urban terror attacks.

Should developers be forced to provide affordable housing?

By Julia Moiso.


Source: City of Sydney
It seems like there is always an affordable housing strategy being circulated within local and state government as an everlasting means to combat housing affordability issues. With the City of Sydney’s recent proposal, developers building in inner Sydney suburbs will be required to make a contribution – either a monetary payment to a community housing provider or an in-kind contribution of finished homes in their development for affordable homes – on new building projects across the city.

The proposal, announced recently by Sydney’s Lord Mayor Clover Moore, recommends expanding the council's current affordable housing policy, which operates only in pockets of the city, across the whole council area – a move which would boost the number of low-income homes by 40 per cent, but likely anger developers.

This has curated some backlash both from developers who have to ‘donate’ part of their development in the name of affordable housing, as well as established residents within the area. This recent proposal which forces developers to provide affordable housing has sparked recent debate amongst property developers, as some feel that it ‘undermines the viability of the development’. Strong opposition is also found well within the community, as developments that provide affordable housing solutions or contributions generally receive double the amount of neighbour objections as opposed to a development that does not provide affordable housing provisions.

So, why is this? Why is there a seemingly negative stigma around providing affordable housing units? It’s important to remember the difference between social housing and affordable housing. Affordable housing is more open to a broader range of household incomes (usually low to moderate incomes) than social housing, and is often managed privately, so households can earn higher levels of income and still be eligible. Social housing is provided for people on very low incomes which is usually managed by a government body.

The general consensus pressing society within cities like Melbourne and Sydney is evidently housing affordability, which appears to be high on the politcal agenda. So naturally, it seems to be that everyone is all for providing affordable housing measures...except when it comes to their street.

According to Strategic Housing Solutions principal Robert Furolo, development that incorporates affordable housing measures receive double the amount of objections than that of a development without affordable housing. People may often generalise affordable housing tenants with negative connotations like "junkies" and lazy young troublemaker's; an unhealthy stigma that is not a sustainable attitude towards responding to metropolitan housing unaffordability crisis.

Should push-come-to-shove when it’s time to get serious about providing affordable housing measures? Can it be said that Sydneysiders may be standing in their own way when it comes to creating a more affordable city? If such an attitude towards affordable housing is not changed, community opposition may be one of the contributing factors to slowing down the supply of much-needed affordable housing.


The creative future of public spaces

By Jake Koumoundouros.

The old Slussen. (Source: Stockholms Stad).

Redeveloping a major transport interchange is a substantial challenge for any city. Along with ensuring that the new interchange will cope with any projected traffic increase, there is also increasing pressure on cities to incorporate new and exciting public spaces into these. In a local context, the Melbourne Metro rail tunnel project will be a catalyst for major change in Melbourne and associated with it is the chance to redevelop a number of our key transport interchanges.  
Influencing Traffic Projections
In terms of the coping with projected traffic increases, to understand what could be possible it is useful to analyse comparative examples in a global context. In Stockholm, the ‘Slussen interchange’ in the Sodermalm district is aiming to achieve a 0% increase in car traffic between now and the year 2030. Is this possible? Well, apparently so! According to Stockholms Stad (Stockholm City Council), the current motor traffic in Slussen is approximately 30,000 cars per day, and - in 2030 - the projected figure will remain so.  How? Investment in alternative transport modes – such as cycling and walking – to ensure that cycle traffic will more than double during the same period (refer below). If achieved, this will be a remarkable accomplishment for the city as it will allow them the opportunity to transform the interchange for the better. However, is this achievement possible in Melbourne?

                                                              Source: Stockholms Stad.

Let’s compare Melbourne’s Domain interchange with Slussen. Under Melbourne Metro, the Domain interchange will have a brand new underground rail station which will also continue to include surface tram and bus routes (and will therefore not be dissimilar to Slussen in this sense, which also includes metro, commuter rail and buses). However, the difference is that there seems to be no ‘deliberate’ effort to halt the growth of car traffic through the Domain interchange.
Enhancing the Public Realm
Keeping car traffic stagnant in Slussen holds the potential for Stockholm to incorporate new public realm works that activate the part of its waterfront that otherwise would not be possible. Refer below. The new Slussen interchange will include squares, plazas and an amphitheatre and beautiful boardwalks across the river, completely activating a once desolate and barely permeable  corner (speaking from experience) of an otherwise vibrant city.

                                                  The new Slussen. (Source: Stockholms Stad).
Wouldn’t it be exciting to replicate this for the Domain Interchange?
Domain’s broader surround are already densely populated and incorporates a large employment precinct in St Kilda Road North and South Melbourne. What makes the redevelopment of the Domain Interchange particularly interesting is that it is flanked by the Royal Botanic Gardens, giving an opportunity to activate the interchange in such a way that acts as an extension of the gardens or which complements them, rather than removing heritage-listed vegetation and altering the boulevard character of St Kilda Road for generations to come. It could be that the interchange incorporates a new piazza (which could become the vibrant heart of the neighbourhood), which is critical as St Kilda Road North and South Melbourne host an ever-increasing local resident and worker population. Either outcome would become a significant, valued community asset.
To conclude, managing population density will become increasingly problematic as our cities continue to grow and evolve. More than ever, we need to be more creative in the ways that we plan for our public spaces at key public environments such as transport interchanges. Stockholm’s Slussen example is one way that we can begin to incorporate new public realms into our transport infrastructure on a local scale.