City Living

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Recent debates about prominent advertising in Melbourne and Sydney have highlighted public concerns about the commercialisation of public space. The sense that our cities have become increasingly vulnerable to commercial forces is premised on the assumption that advertising has no place in our cities.
However, historical images of our cities challenge this view. They reveal advertising and commercial signage to be an ever-present part of our cityscapes and urban life.
A recent controversy in Melbourne over a proposed billboard has echoes of 19th-century debates over billboards occupying prominent city sites. Projections of animated images onto the wall of 231 Swanston Street will turn it into one of the largest advertising billboards in the city. Described as a “<a href="https://www.theage.com.au/business/companies/visual-clutter-mega-billboard-approved-for-swanston-street-20190327-p5185w" target="_blank">mega-sized 305 square metre display</a>”, its size is a key issue, but the controversy does not end there.
Melbourne City Council had at first rejected the sign, <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/business/companies/visual-clutter-mega-billboard-approved-for-swanston-street-20190327-p5185w" target="_blank">arguing</a>: "[…] digital billboards beaming high-rotation advertisements into the public realm are creating an unprecedented level of visual clutter that detracts from our city streets."
Lumen Billboards challenged the decision through the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2019/308" target="_blank">VCAT upheld the appeal</a>, deeming that the sign’s size and illumination was appropriate for the site and that it had little impact on the area’s heritage.
Some see VCAT’s decision as yet another example of big business overriding public interests. <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/mega-billboard-on-swanston-street-will-add-nothing-and-only-take-away-20190403-p51aav" target="_blank">Writing in The Age</a>, Nicola Philp attacked the perceived commercialisation of public space. Readers’ comments echoed her sentiments. One reader lamented: "Melbourne is becoming an advertisers [sic] paradise with gaudy flashing signs everywhere. The beauty and elegance that Melbourne once had is slowly being eroded."
Another took aim at advertising, fuming: "I hate the idea of more intrusive advertising being forced down our throats."
Concerns about the commercialisation of public space were similarly expressed in response to the use of the Sydney Opera House as a billboard to promote the Everest horse race last October. The Opera House’s chief executive opposed the highly controversial decision by the New South Wales government. More than <a href="https://www.change.org/p/defend-our-opera-house-support-louise-herron-9a97d417-bb75-4737-b572-049aaf357ccf" target="_blank">310,000 people signed a change.org petition</a> against the decision.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5-2OHyHCZJA?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" width="440" height="260"></iframe>
The use of the Opera House to promote a horse race triggered public protests.
Such numbers did not deter the state government, which had several prominent figures supporting its decision. Among them was Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who described the iconic building as “<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-07/pm-says-sydney-opera-house-biggest-billboard-sydney-has/10348398">the biggest billboard Sydney has</a>”.
The PM’s crude description is, strictly speaking, correct. Despite its policy forbidding “logos, corporate identities or colours”, the Opera House sails have been regularly used for promotional purposes. Unofficially, it has also served as a canvas for various protest slogans. However, the Everest uproar was as much about commercial promotion as it was about the power of the city’s political elites.
Concern about commercialisation is an old one
Concerns about the commercialisation of city streets and landmarks are nothing new. In 1880, Brisbane’s Telegraph newspaper took aim at billboards “occupying two of the most prominent sites in the city”, labelling them “terrible eyesores”. Sydney’s lord mayor expressed similar sentiments in 1907 when he was <a href="http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article112641786" target="_blank">reported as saying</a>: "It was an outrage in a civilised community that every square inching of land abutting on the public streets should be made hideous by posters."
Significantly, one of the first items printed in Australia was a playbill from 1796 promoting a theatrical performance. Like government orders, the playbill and other commercial notices were posted in prominent locations in city streets. Retailers added their mark to city streets by employing signwriters to adorn their premises and promote their wares.
The significance and impact of such commercial signage was formally recognised in 1830, when the governor of New South Wales <a href="http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article2195232" target="_blank">decreed</a> that it was illegal to “keep up any Sign, Writing, Painting, or other Mark, on or near to his House or Premises” that falsely gave the impression a house was licensed.
As commerce duly grew, so too did the amount of advertising on city streets. By the early 20th century, commercial signs and advertisements were an entrenched and inescapable aspect of urban life. They permeated walls, hoardings and all parts of public transportation systems. Electricity and neon lighting extended outdoor advertising’s reach into the night-time hours.
In recent times, sports grounds have added another commercial layer by selling their naming rights. Melbourne’s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Stadium#Naming_rights_history" target="_blank">Marvel Stadium has previously been known as Colonial Stadium, Telstra Dome and Etihad Stadium</a>. More confusingly, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensland_Sport_and_Athletics_Centre" target="_blank">Brisbane</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadium_Australia" target="_blank">Sydney</a> have both been home to ANZ Stadium (formerly known as QE II and Stadium Australia/Telstra Stadium respectively).
And then there are the signs we love
Our relationship with commercial signs is not static. Some signs have taken on a life of their own. The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_billboard" target="_blank">Coke sign in Sydney’s King’s Cross</a> and the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skipping_Girl_Sign" target="_blank">Skipping Girl in Melbourne’s Abbottsford</a> have become a part of the respective cities’ cultural heritage.
The interest generated by the uncovering of a long-hidden <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/the-new-ghostly-attraction-in-wynyard--catch-it-before-it-is-spirited-away-20170917-gyizkj" target="_blank">“ghost sign” for Peapes menswear</a> near Wynyard Station in Sydney similarly reveals that commercial signs and advertising are less utilitarian than critics suggest.
Commercial advertising is a part of our city’s fabric and heritage. While the VCAT decision certainly raises legitimate concerns about processes and the values we apply to public space, the approval of the giant billboard is entirely consistent with our past.
Whether or not we like it is, of course, a different question.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114972/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Robert Crawford, Professor of Advertising, RMIT University
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/selling-out-the-city-to-advertising-nothing-new-to-see-here-114972" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Selling out the city to advertising? Nothing new to see here

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Increasing numbers of city dwellers live in apartments. This is particularly the case for migrants. And that makes apartment buildings important hubs of multiculturalism in our cities.
However, our recent research shows that researchers and policymakers have largely overlooked the implications of this combination of increasing cultural diversity and increasing housing density.
We live in an environment of increasing cultural diversity. But we also see increasing racism in Australian society, as well as a rise in racialised tension about Chinese property buyers.
These developments suggest we need to pay more attention to how to make apartment buildings work for residents from many different cultural backgrounds.
This is essential to support social cohesion, or the positive social relationships that bond members of society. When social cohesion is weakened, we see a lack of trust and reductions in people’s sense of belonging and their willingness to participate and help others. This, in turn, can damage people’s health and well-being, as well as fuelling broader political instability.
Increasing density
In 2015, we passed an important, but largely unrecognised, milestone in Australia. It was the first year in the country’s history that dwelling starts for attached properties overtook those for detached houses.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221319/original/file-20180601-88530-rftpx6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Author provided
This should perhaps come as no surprise. State governments have for many years been pushing for more apartments to be built.
Australia is not alone in this regard. Countries around the world have been promoting “compact city” policies that focus on building up rather than building out.
Around Australia, almost one in ten people now live in apartments. However, the proportions are much higher in our major cities.
Across the Greater Sydney metropolitan area, for example, 30% of residents live in apartments. In some inner-city suburbs, apartments are home to the vast majority of residents, including in Pyrmont, Zetland and Ultimo (see Table 1 below). Beachside locations such as Surfers Paradise, Queensland, and Glenelg, South Australia, also have high proportions of apartment residents.
<iframe style="width: 0; min-width: 100% !important;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/chjAr/1/" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" width="100%" height="474"></iframe>
Increasing diversity
Apartment residents are very diverse culturally. Across Australia, more than half of apartment residents – 56%, compared to 33% of all Australian residents – are migrants. Of these, the biggest group (26% of apartment residents) are migrants born in Asia.
Nationwide, only 7% of Australian-born people live in apartments. For those born in northeast Asia (including China), the figure is 31%. And for those born in southern and central Asia (including India), it’s 26%.
Looking again at Greater Sydney, housing density and cultural diversity are clearly correlated. The Sydney suburbs where more than 90% of residents live in apartments also have high concentrations of overseas-born migrants.
Challenges of apartment living
While apartment living is unfamiliar to many Australian-born residents, Australian apartment lifestyles and norms can be even further from what migrants are used to. Our research, based on interviews with Sydney-based strata managers, shows that social and cultural differences can contribute to tensions within apartment buildings. These might be about shoes left in common areas, or washing hung on balconies, or “offensive” cooking smells wafting beyond kitchen walls.
Tensions between residents with different lifestyles are not limited to residents from different ethnic or cultural backgrounds. Tensions also arise between residents of different ages, different household types and with different working schedules. Cultural difference is but one of many factors that can contribute to tensions in apartment buildings.
However, strata managers also commented that sometimes new arrivals’ lack of English and lack of familiarity with Australian regulations had prevented them from fully participating in their building by, for example, joining strata committees or attending or speaking at meetings. Sometimes new arrivals were not even aware of basics such as the need to pay strata levies. Quite possibly that’s a result of strata rules and regulations not having been adequately explained to them.
Australian strata regulations and bylaws reflect a particular understanding of what it means to own or live in an apartment. Obligations and opportunities here – for example, the right to vote on motions at meetings – may look very different in other countries.
Apartment residents, strata committees and strata managers are finding that they need to adapt to the reality of their culturally diverse communities. After all, multiculturalism is about acknowledging and respecting difference.
Fostering cohesion
As we have previously discussed, more inclusive practices – such as translating documents and meeting discussions, conducting audits and surveys of building residents, and providing a range of opportunities for participation – will benefit all residents and owners, regardless of their background.
While multicultural apartment blocks may pose challenges, they also offer opportunities for residents to enjoy the richness of a diverse and cosmopolitan environment. This is one of the enormous attractions of urban life. For many apartment residents, it’s available on an everyday level.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/97176/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">With growing numbers of urban residents living in apartment buildings that are also culturally diverse, more efforts to foster co-operation and understanding are vital for realising the potential of these urban spaces to become productive hubs of everyday multiculturalism in Australia.
Christina Ho, Senior Lecturer &amp; Discipline Coordinator, Social &amp; Political Sciences, University of Technology Sydney
Edgar Liu, Research Fellow at City Futures Research Centre, UNSW 
Hazel Easthope, Senior Research Fellow, City Futures Research Centre, UNSW
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/higher-density-and-diversity-apartments-are-australia-at-its-most-multicultural-97176" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

 Higher density and diversity: apartments are Australia at its most multicultural

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
A decomposed, mummified body of a man was recently found by forensic cleaners in a Sydney apartment. The apartment’s owner is thought to have suffered from hoarding disorder, and police believe the decomposed body had been there for more than ten years.
We occasionally read stories involving people with hoarding disorder - people whose possessions pose a serious burden. Clutter might prevent them from sitting on their sofa, taking a shower, cooking a meal, or sleeping in their bed.
Despite the lack of space, they find it impossible to part with items they don’t need. Why is it so hard for them to let go of their possessions?
Loving things
As children, we use possessions to comfort ourselves when our parents are unavailable. By the time we reach adulthood, most of us have abandoned our security blankets and teddy bears. We might occasionally buy something unnecessary or hang on to a few items we no longer need.
In most cases, these few extra possessions don’t pose a problem. We store them in the closet or display them proudly on a shelf. But our stuff never creeps beyond that point. We have a few treasured objects, but we don’t rely on them to make us feel good – at least not on a regular basis.
It’s a different story for the 1.2 million Australians who meet the DSM-5 criteria for hoarding disorder. These include:
<ul>
<li>difficulty discarding items regardless of their actual value</li>
<li>a perceived need to save the items and associated distress at the idea of losing them</li>
<li>clutter that prevents using the home being used for its intended purpose.</li>
</ul>
Hoarding disorder leads to a quality of life as poor as that of people with schizophrenia. Clutter increases the risks of injury, medical conditions, and death.
A quarter to a third of Australian residential fire-related deaths are associated with hoarding disorder.
For those with hoarding disorder, possessions remind them of the past and foreshadow a potential future. They can remember their child wearing that outfit or playing with that toy. They are certain that jug will be useful some day, despite having many other jugs they have never used. They are extremely attached to their possessions for one reason or another.
Just thinking about disposing of their items makes people with hoarding disorder feel highly anxious. Their anxiety is similar to what others may feel about giving a speech or finding a spider in their shoe. Believing they can’t cope with the distress of losing their possessions, they hang on tightly. Doing so unfortunately strengthens their beliefs that their possessions are needed.
Objects as human substitutes
If children regularly use objects for comfort during times of need, why doesn’t everyone have a hoarding problem? We think it is because some people are more prone to anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism is when an object is perceived to have human-like qualities.
Humans need to be connected physically, socially, and psychologically to other humans. This need is just as important as the need for air, water, food, and shelter. Loneliness negatively affects our health and is a risk factor for early death. Understandably, when we feel devalued or unloved, we seek out closeness. When our need isn’t met by humans, objects may serve as a substitute.
Individuals who hoard items tend to experience interpersonal difficulties, feel insecure in relationships, and believe themselves to be a burden to others. To compensate for unmet social needs, they anthropomorphise objects to feel connected.
Anthropomorphism doesn’t fully meet people’s needs, so they collect more and more objects. Stronger anthropomorphic tendencies are associated with more compulsive buying and greater acquisition of free stuff.
The current treatment approach teaches individuals how to challenge their beliefs about possessions. It also teaches them how to resist acquiring urges and how to sort, organise, and discard possessions. This approach helps only about a quarter of people who receive it.
We used to think social disconnection was a consequence of hoarding. Now, we think it may be part of the cause. At Lifeline Harbour to Hawkesbury, Macquarie University, and UNSW, we are piloting an enhanced hoarding treatment. This treatment addresses core hoarding problems as well as helping to improve impaired social connections.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/97784/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">The consequences of hoarding escalate as people get older. Without treatment, the consequences (such as fire) of hoarding disorder costs Australia an estimated A$36,880 per person, per occurrence. If we can help people feel valued and loved, they may benefit more from treatment. In turn, they may experience a desperately needed improvement in their quality of life.
Melissa Norberg, Associate Professor in Psychology, Macquarie University
Jessica Grisham, Associate Professor in Psychology, UNSW
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/when-possessions-are-poor-substitutes-for-people-hoarding-disorder-and-loneliness-97784" target="_blank">original article</a>.
Photo: Clutter that sufficiently prevents the use of the living room for its original purpose. Source: A/Prof Melissa Norberg.
</body></html>

When possessions are poor substitutes for people: hoarding disorder and loneliness

<html><body>
Public transport that is <a href="http://www.ppt.asn.au/pubdocs/ip15-dodson-et-al-2011.pdf" target="_blank">safe, efficient and effective</a> is a core priority when it comes to city-building. While <a href="https://theconversation.com/getting-public-transport-right-means-less-emphasis-on-rail-45" target="_blank">trains get a lot of attention</a>, buses can also deliver successful public transport services – if we can overcome some common problems.
Problems with bus services
The main issues arise because buses share roads with cars. This tends to reduce the efficiency of bus travel, unless given a dedicated corridor like trains. Road congestion leads to frequent stopping, long journey times and delays in passenger pick-up and drop-off. Other issues include limited off-peak service, poor-quality shelters and unreliable timetables.
<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0739885915300500" target="_blank">None of these problems is insurmountable</a>. With some clever planning and targeted investment, buses can play a key role in public transport. Planners call this “<a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07293682.2010.526550" target="_blank">service-based network planning</a>”.
<h2>Six principles for better service</h2>
Here we offer six <a href="https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2014/05/5-crucial-principles-for-21st-century-transportation-systems/371782/" target="_blank">principles for making buses better</a>. <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966692308000306" target="_blank">Research shows</a> that to meet people’s everyday mobility needs, such as dropping children at school, doing shopping, running errands and so on, bus services must be flexible, convenient, safe, reliable, efficient and integrated.
1. Flexibility is a key requirement. People need to be able to use buses for multiple trips – in succession. Rigid timetables and set routes can make buses less appealing and less effective.
New developments such as “<a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sydney-commuters-get-chance-to-trial-ondemand-buses-20170816-gxx4w5" target="_blank">on-demand</a>” services and <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/heatherfarmbrough/2018/01/31/ugly-but-useful-stockholm-introduces-driverless-busses/#dd21ff160f44" target="_blank">driverless buses</a> offer the potential for better service delivery. For instance, Singapore intends that <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42090987" target="_blank">driverless buses will act as shuttles</a>, funnelling people from neighbourhoods to rapid transit services.
 
2. Convenience is also vitally important. Having to wait a long time, especially if it’s in scorching sun, drenching rain, chilly wind or alone in the dark, deters people from using buses.
Services must enable easy access and use, and must be <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966692311000202" target="_blank">priced fairly</a>. Shelters should be comfortable, attractive and visible (not just <a href="http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/canberrans-rail-against-encroachment-of-ads-with-billboard-ban-changes-20170707-gx6iad" target="_blank">glorified billboards</a>).
The use of <a href="https://www.wired.com/2011/04/how-smartphones-can-improve-public-transit/" target="_blank">smart phone apps</a> to request schedules, locate services, plan journeys, navigate the transport network – using real-time journey maps and multi-language platforms, for example – and pay for trips can improve convenience. When combined with <a href="https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/11/flexible-route-bus-work-better/523/" target="_blank">flexible pick-up and drop-off</a> locations (off-peak or at night), this can better integrate buses into our busy lives.
<a href="https://eprints.qut.edu.au/65216/1/2013_liu_charles.pdf" target="_blank">Flexi-fares</a> (for demand management), “tap and go” payment systems, shopper or family passes, <a href="https://www.wired.com/2016/07/public-transit-riders-want-better-service-not-free-wifi/" target="_blank">free on-board wifi</a> and USB recharging ports can also improve convenience.
3. Passenger safety is related to the above point. Buses should be accessible to a wide variety of people, such as vision-impaired and mobility-challenged, and everyone should feel safe. Safety can be improved in many ways. These include co-locating <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_and_ride" target="_blank">park-and-ride</a> facilities with neighbourhood shopping centres, schools, higher-density housing, recreation areas and other centres of activity, which maximises “passive surveillance”.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/215857/original/file-20180423-75114-1dmf44t.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/215857/original/file-20180423-75114-1dmf44t.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Purewell bus stop displays real-time information about services in Dorset, UK. <a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Purewell_Stony_Lane_bus_stop_Real_Time_information_display.JPG" target="_blank">Arriva436/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY-SA</a>
4. Reliability is an important requirement for people to use buses. Transit systems must be designed so the buses run on time. And many bus rapid transit systems around the world deliver fast and reliable services.
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bus_rapid_transit_systems" target="_blank">More than 40</a> cities now have rapid transit bus systems. These include Adelaide in Australia, Curitiba in Brazil, Seoul in Korea, Cape Town in South Africa, Ottawa in Canada, Los Angeles in USA, and <a href="https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-10-21/can-modern-megacity-bogot-get-without-subway">Bogota in Colombia</a>, which is among the largest by passenger volume.
Key here are measures such as dedicated bus lanes (e.g. the <a href="https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/busways.aspx" target="_blank">Brisbane Busway</a>), peak-hour clearways, city clipper services (e.g. crosstown with limited stops), <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187704281101024X" target="_blank">traffic signals</a> that give priority to buses, and flexi lanes for peak demand. These can be paired with “real-time service” displays indicating the next available bus, and even <a href="https://theconversation.com/london-congestion-charge-why-its-time-to-reconsider-one-of-the-citys-great-successes-92478" target="_blank">congestion charging</a>.
5. Efficiency is a key driver of public transport use and delivery. Many bus services are contracted (albeit with subsidies) so need to “pay their way”. Savings can be achieved by switching fuel (to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/15/uk-first-poo-bio-bus-bristol-regular-service" target="_blank">biofuel</a> or <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/20/europes-oil-capital-turns-to-clean-green-hydrogen-buses" target="_blank">hydrogen</a>, for example). Hybrid and <a href="https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/06/not-just-shenzhen-jaw-dropping-china-electric-bus-roundup/" target="_blank">electric bus</a> fleets use less or no fuel.
Using all doors for boarding can reduce trip times, as can new <a href="https://www.wired.com/2013/04/rethinking-subway-seating/" target="_blank">seating configurations</a>. Flexible payment options, using systems such as “tap and go”, can eliminate “fare fumbling”.
A simple measure to handle variable demand is versatile vehicle fleets. Examples such as Hong Kong’s <a href="http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20160713-the-scary-fast-buses-of-hong-kong" target="_blank">light buses</a> and the Swiss town of St Gallen’s high-capacity, bi-articulated trolleybus vehicles show this improved efficiency.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/215869/original/file-20180423-75123-12z0gmc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/215869/original/file-20180423-75123-12z0gmc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Jumbo double-articulated trolley buses operate in St Gallen, Switzerland. <a class="source" href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.flickr.com/photos/70981241@N00/6813792712" target="_blank">Kecko/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a>
6. Network integration is crucial if buses are to work. This means passengers should be able to transfer easily between walking, cycling, private vehicles, car sharing (e.g. Uber), ferries, trains and other buses.
Fare systems should be designed for easy transfer. Transfers should be free or low-cost within set time periods.
And bus transit should be better integrated into cities. Initiatives such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-30-minute-city-how-do-we-put-the-political-rhetoric-into-practice-56136" target="_blank">transit-oriented development</a> combine transport with housing, recreation, education, commercial activities and other land uses.
The future of bus transit
Of course, not all these solutions will work for every city. Smaller and midsize cities are arguably better positioned to take advantage of bus transit, though it works in larger metro areas too. For example, <a href="https://unfccc.int/climate-action/momentum-for-change/lighthouse-activities/guangzhou-bus-rapid-transit-system-china" target="_blank">Guangzhou in China has bus rapid transit</a>.
Not many cities can afford to implement these solutions all at once. While some commentators have suggested <a href="https://theconversation.com/buses-could-be-history-sooner-than-you-think-heres-why-90126" target="_blank">buses could soon be history</a>, cities like Brisbane, Australia, are experimenting with <a href="https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/traffic-transport/public-transport/brisbane-metro" target="_blank">hybrid bus transit systems</a>. The vehicles and stations have the look and feel of light rail, but retain the flexibility of buses.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94984/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">With careful planning and phased implementation, bus transit can help make cities healthier, more efficient and more sustainable.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jason-byrne-6066" target="_blank">Jason Byrne</a>, Professor of Human Geography and Planning, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-tasmania-888" target="_blank">University of Tasmania</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/emma-pharo-446710" target="_blank">Emma Pharo</a>, Senior Lecturer, Geography and Environmental Studies, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-tasmania-888" target="_blank">University of Tasmania</a>
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/dont-forget-buses-six-rules-for-improving-city-bus-services-94984" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Six rules for improving city bus services

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Infrastructure Australia has called for metropolitan-scale governance of Australia’s largest cities. The new report by the Commonwealth’s statutory infrastructure agency, which sought to scope out the prospects for Sydney and Melbourne over the next 25 years, identifies integrated governance and leadership as keys to success.
The report notes state governments’ role in metropolitan planning and infrastructure provision, and local governments’ role in planning policy implementation and local services. It argues, though, that our fast-growing cities are at risk of fragmented governance and disjointed infrastructure provision by local councils.
Larger governing entities, Infrastructure Australia suggests, can employ staff with higher-order skills. The result is more efficient infrastructure delivery and operation and better strategic planning. The agency argues that such entities can more readily partner with state and federal agencies in metropolitan and regional planning.
In support of its claims, the report cites OECD studies that linked higher productivity to reduced governance fragmentation. The principal measure of this is the number of local governments within a city (Melbourne and Sydney have 30 or more councils each).
Infrastructure Australia sensibly avoids prescribing a governance model. Instead it offers exemplars of integrated governance elsewhere.
These models include the Greater London Authority, which sits above London’s municipalities, the Auckland Council, formed in 2010 from seven local and one regional authorities, and the City of Brisbane, formed in 1924 from a mix of 20 shires and boroughs. Although it is not directly endorsed, the recently established Greater Sydney Commission is noted as a step towards greater integration.
Scholars and practitioners have for some decades called for governance reforms for Australia’s large cities to enable democratically founded planning. What insights might such thinking offer?
How did our cities get to this point?
The first step is to understand history. Both Sydney and Melbourne have in the past enjoyed the integration and oversight of metropolitan agencies.
The County of Cumberland, for example, produced Sydney’s first metropolitan plan in 1948. The Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works (MMBW) played a very strong role in that city’s development. Arguably, each city’s roads agency strongly influenced post-war development via freeway building.
Metropolitan agencies can tend towards technocratic managerialism if they lack democratic foundation. The County of Cumberland drew delegates from local councils, but was replaced by a state planning agency under ministerial control in 1964. The MMBW was originally composed of local council delegates, with ministerial appointees added later, but fell to changing public sector philosophies in the 1980s. Its functions were replaced by a mix of water authorities and a state department of planning under ministerial direction.
The lack of metropolitan democracy in recent decades has meant state political decision-making has dominated planning in Sydney and Melbourne. Planning ministers wield extensive power to write metropolitan plans and rule on major development applications. The 2002 Melbourne 2030 Metropolitan Strategy is infamous for continuing freeway-based urban development despite the extensive public consultation it undertook revealing much greater preference for public transport.
While the state-centralised model of planning governance offers some democratic oversight – the minister can be removed at state election time – it also leaves planning open to capture by powerful donor interests, such as private developers or infrastructure proponents. This problem is heightened when state treasuries encourage “market-led” proposals for major projects.
Ministerial politicisation also turns planning into a partisan contest. The result is a succession of plans, often vacuous in content, that are jettisoned by each new minister. The city becomes overlain with a palimpsest of differing strategies in short succession. There is little prospect of establishing long-term coherence.
Worse, in response to perceived political advantage at election time, infrastructure projects may be announced out of sequence or out of plan, adding to the incoherence. Melbourne, for example, lacks a transport plan as mandated by statute. Instead, both sides of politics have imposed multiple major transport projects without properly considering their strategic purpose or alternatives.
Politicisation also means fundamental urban questions are avoided. Transport planning is an example, where improving urban productivity demands a shift from roads to public transport, yet ministers are typically captive to the road lobby.
Even where independent infrastructure agencies advise on planning strategy, ministers readily ignore their recommendations. And with a state minister ruling over a metropolitan polity, there is a mismatch of democratic geography.
The quest for a better model
So what might metropolitan governance look like that avoids the flaws of the technocratic model while ensuring both adequate democratic participation and limits on the prospects of political capture? What principles might an integrated governance model adhere to?
Given the pressures and stresses facing cities, there is an urgent need to inscribe principles of democracy, sustainability and equity within governance arrangements. A new planning authority model is necessary that sits between the overarching state legislative framing and local administration and services. It should aim for a metropolitan governing body to enable effective representative decision-making about urban strategy and investment.
As I have argued previously (with Brendan Gleeson and Marcus Spiller), the case for an independent “commission” model is compelling, but so is the opportunity to improve urban democracy. The question of whether a metropolitan body draws representation from local municipalities, or has its own electoral jurisdictions and mechanisms, deserves greater deliberation.
The Greater London Authority operates on the basis of electoral structures separate from both national government and local municipalities. The Auckland Council is also separated from national government and runs via a representative local ward structure. Metro Vancouver is a federated authority of 21 municipalities, one electoral area and one Indigenous body that plans and delivers regional-scale services.
For Australian cities, a combination of local representation (via an electoral college or an additional tier of political representation) seems viable.
The question of a mayor is also highly pertinent. Auckland, London and Brisbane each directly elect a metropolitan mayor who provides leadership across the entire city. This creates a high degree of democratic accountability at the metropolitan level, while providing a focal point for city-to-city conversations. That is not the case with the Sydney or Melbourne lord mayors, who represent a single municipality.
Recognise Indigenous sovereignty
Another fundamental consideration in metropolitan governance is Aboriginal sovereignty. In no part of Australia was this sovereignty voluntarily ceded. Any metropolitan governance arrangements should recognise unceded Aboriginal sovereignty.
Again, there are models for this overseas. Vancouver’s regional district provides for local indigenous input. The Auckland Council includes an independent statutory board that advises on Maori issues.
In Australia, Victoria recently instituted joint governance of the Birrarung (Yarra) catchment covering much of Melbourne. Thus, the basic principle of Aboriginal input to urban governance is recognised in policy. Aboriginal metropolitan representation accompanies a treaty, perhaps under which rent is paid for the urban occupation of country, with proceeds to support Aboriginal advancement.
What about the state and federal roles?
What role might the state government then play in metropolitan governance? The state should set the legislative context, so planning law is democratic, inclusive and sustainable. It should also enable financing arrangements for urban infrastructure.
Finally, the role of national government remains relevant. As a signatory to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the New Urban Agenda (NUA), the Australian government has accepted a role in framing national urban policy.
The government released a national urban policy in 2011, but seems to have forgotten it. Reversion to ad-hoc City Deals is not enough.
There is a clear role for the federal government to frame Australia’s urban responsibilities under the Sustainable Development Goals and New Urban Agenda and to collaborate with state and metropolitan governments on implementation.
Australia’s large and growing cities need more democratic, sustainable and inclusive urban governance. To achieve this we must move to representative arrangements that enable our cities to determine their futures as metropolitan polities.
Jago Dodson, Professor of Urban Policy and Director, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/all-the-signs-point-to-our-big-cities-need-for-democratic-metro-scale-governance-92417" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

All the signs point to our big cities' need for democratic, metro-scale governance: Jago Dodson

<html><body><div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
GUEST OBSERVER
The National Cities Performance Framework issued by Federal Cities Minister Angus Taylor is an excellent initiative to ensure more data is available to measure city performance but more measures are needed on urban apartment living.
The National Cities Performance Framework sets out many important measures that are essential to monitor the performance of Australia’s cities.
We are concerned however that the data seems skewed towards a detached house view of our cities with little measurement of the swing towards more urban apartment living.
Contextual indicator number 6, (p 20) for instance, measures the median detached house price with a description that this is ‘a typical house in a city’ and that this will help understand if ‘housing is affordable for residents’. 
The results from the 2016 census demonstrate that 28.1% of homes in Sydney are now apartments and housing approval data indicates that over 60% of approvals are for new apartments. This shift to apartment living is the biggest structural change happening in Australian cities and the National Cities Performance Framework must measure this trend.
The Housing Indicators also seem to focus on house prices rather than all homes including apartments and medium density dwellings.
The planning system is being evaluated through the value of building approvals per capita which is a useful measure but equally important is to measure the actual commencements of buildings. In Sydney only 58% of housing approvals, when measured over 4 years, proceed to commencement and become real projects.
The scale of the data listed in the performance framework is massive and this will clearly require significant resources to collate, validate, analyse and interpret.
The Urban Taskforce is particularly interested in interpreting future trends through the cities data and we are keen to work with Minister Taylor in ensuring that useful data comes from his important initiative.
CHRIS JOHNSON is chief executive officer of property development industry group Urban Taskforce and can be contacted <a href="https://www.urbantaskforce.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=97&amp;Itemid=126#.Vdaart55dFI" target="_blank">here</a>.
</div>
</div>
</div></body></html>

cjohnson-8xfqfuuCSq

National Cities Performance Framework must measure the trend to urban living

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/80677/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Our cities have now been named as the saving places of a planet in crisis. And yet we cannot decide on the principles that make for a good city. Everybody has a view, but some views are more sustainable than others.
What we desperately need is a big and general public dialogue about the principles that make for a good city. This is the basis of our project, Principles for Better Cities, led by the City of Berlin. It provides a platform for the Ecocity World Summit in Melbourne this week.
<h2>Broader vision is needed</h2>
We need to get beyond the current tendency to become fixated on spruiking different high-level concepts. For example, IBM, Microsoft and Big Tech have put their money – or actually other people’s money – on the smart city.
But the concept of the smart city is too often reduced to narrow technological monitoring and big data collection. McKinsey says that a good city will achieve “smart growth”. But tell that to Brussels, Chicago, Montreal, Toronto and Vienna, global cities that are declining in size.
The Mercer group and The Economist tell us liveability is the key. However, they narrowly developed their indices for corporations seeking to decide on how much they will pay their executives for moving to less liveable cities. This raises a further question: “Liveable for whom?”
The Rockefeller Foundation is backing the resilient city. This too is an important concept. But much of its appeal to governments is in saving resources as they seek to defer increasing climate risks through pushing responsibility back to resilient communities to self-manage their recoveries.
<h2>A common problem of definition</h2>
What actually is a good city then? 
Depending on who you ask, they are sustainable cities, liveable cities and resilient cities, but they are also adapting cities and carbon-neutral cities. Or they are caring cities, inclusive cities, just cities, peaceful cities, information cities and networked cities. To confuse things further, they are also prosperous cities, learning cities and innovative cities.
Just by listing these urban forms, the problem starts to become clearer. These are just concepts with shifting or weak definitions. They mean anything “good” and apply variously to anybody’s projections.
The second problem comes with deciding what is actually good about these different emphases.
As part of this difficulty, assigning different indicators to each of these urban forms is extraordinarily difficult. Is a city more liveable because it has a Mediterranean climate? That is what the current liveability indices would suggest. 
Is a city more resilient because its “man-made assets” are more robust? (Excuse the gender-specific language here.) That is what the core resilience literature tells us.
<h2>Who decides?</h2>
The third problem centres on the question: “Who decides what is good?”
The principles and indicators tend to be decided by elite researchers working at a distance from the field, or by teams using sets of secondary data that may or may not be appropriate. 
Elite teams develop black-box indicator sets (such as liveability indexes) that remain commercial-in-confidence. The data drive the index construction without consideration of the meaning of that data. For example, one index ranking better cities in the greater Sydney region is driven by an indicator that suggests a key consideration is being closer to the beach or mountains.
The fourth problem becomes how do we order and prioritise the many claims about what is good. There are so many considerations that the number of potential principles becomes overwhelming. 
This happened to the New Urban Agenda, developed by the United Nations over the last two years. It has hundreds of principles, all thrown together in an incomprehensible list. Cities are understandably confused.
<h2>Towards an inclusive, holistic approach</h2>
Our Principles for Better Cities attempt to respond to all these problems. Complementary to the New Urban Agenda, Principles for Better Cities is an initiative of the World Association of Major Metropolises, which has been working with cities on a set of basic principles to guide good urban development.
This set is based on the proposition that, rather than just adding together a list of proposals from different current or immediate concerns, the principles should begin from a general framework that concerns the human condition.
We start with the idea that there should be basic principles that relate to the following basic domains of social life:
<ul>
<li>
Ecology – cities should have a deep and integrated relationship with nature.
</li>
<li>
Economics – cities should be based on an economy organised around the social needs of all citizens.
</li>
<li>
Politics – cities should have an enhanced emphasis on engaged and negotiated civic involvement.
</li>
<li>
Culture – cities should actively develop ongoing processes for dealing with the uncomfortable intersections of identity and difference.
</li>
</ul>
These have become the top-level principles for going deeper and deeper, elaborated across more and more specific subdomains of practice. 
And here is the completely novel dimension. These principles have been and will be debated by people. None of these principles are fixed, hidden, confusing, or commercial-in-confidence. They are the outcome of open dialogue.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/paul-james-95757" target="_blank">Paul James</a> is Professor of Globalization and Cultural Diversity, Western Sydney University.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/belinda-young-388954" target="_blank">Belinda Young</a> is Project Officer – Ecocity, Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, University of Melbourne.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brendan-gleeson-9823" target="_blank">Brendan Gleeson</a> is Director, Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, University of Melbourne.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-wiseman-252" target="_blank">John Wiseman</a> is Professorial Fellow, University of Melbourne.
All are authors for <a href="https://theconversation.com/au" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

What actually is a good city?

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/75840/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Access to high-quality public open space is a key ingredient of healthy, liveable cities.
This has long been recognised in government planning policy, based on a large body of academic research showing that accessible green spaces lead to better health outcomes.
However, cities are home to more than just people. We also need to accommodate the critters and plants who live in them. This includes the species who called our cities home before we did.
Greening cities that are becoming denser is a major challenge. Green spaces and density are both good for health outcomes when designed well. However, higher-density development can place added pressure on green space if not well planned and managed.
The South Australian government is leading the way in the design of public green spaces in denser cities by bringing together the multiple actors needed to create change. This includes the Heart Foundation, Departments of Health and Ageing, Environment Water and Natural Resources, Office for Recreation and Sport, the South Australian Local Government Association and the Office of the Chief Architect, as well as researchers from RMIT University and the University of Melbourne.
This is the new shift required for urban greening practice – led by practitioners with support from research evidence provided by (and in collaboration with) academics.
In Victoria, Planning Minister Richard Wynne has called for the suburban backyard to be maintained in the refreshed Plan Melbourne 2017-2050. This policy recognises the importance of private green space by establishing minimum garden areas in new developments.
Another major challenge is increasing urban heat and climate change. Some tree species we know and love will no longer be viable in cities that are several degrees warmer than they were.
Suitable species for future climates need to be selected, as the City of Melbourne has recently demonstrated. Increasing temperatures and the resulting loss of old trees will have adverse consequences for public health, ecology and biodiversity.
Understanding how best to achieve these benefits, and the trade-offs involved in delivering them, is particularly important today. Our cities are growing rapidly. We are seeing increasing populations, greater housing density, rising temperatures, growing rates of obesity, diabetes, stress and depression, and declining native biodiversity.
Why is greening on the agenda?
Urban greening is now recognised as a public health issue. New research has found its benefits include:
<ul>
<li>lower rates of anti-depressant prescriptions in neighbourhoods close to woodlands in the UK;
</li>
<li>happier people living in areas with more birdlife; and
</li>
<li>better health outcomes with increased neighbourhood tree coverage in the US.
</li>
</ul>
Ecological research also shows that urban green spaces can support many kinds of birds, bats, bees and plants. Urban greening has even been found to lead to safer neighbourhoods.
Australian urban planning and policy need to embrace these findings. Multiple government portfolios must work together to better plan for green cities that achieve maximum impact for economic, environmental and public health outcomes.
What do we mean by green space?
Green spaces are areas of public and private land covered with vegetation. This includes most areas we traditionally see as public open space: parks, gardens and sports ovals.
Green space also includes other areas of public land: street trees and streetscapes, nature conservation reserves, community gardens, school grounds and public buildings with green walls, facades and roofs. On private land, green spaces include residential gardens, golf courses and greening on and around private buildings.
All these green spaces together provide multiple benefits. The Heart Foundation and South Australian government recently commissioned an evidence review of how quality green space is supporting health, wellbeing and biodiversity. This report shows that green spaces can be designed to provide multiple benefits.
These benefits are delivered by including features that are known to influence physical activity, mental health, social, cultural, environmental and biodiversity outcomes. For example, planting trees in parks, gardens or streets can have many benefits:
<ul>
<li>cool cities;
</li>
<li>slow stormwater runoff;
</li>
<li>filter air pollution;
</li>
<li>provide habitat for some animals;
</li>
<li>make people happier; and
</li>
<li>encourage walking.
</li>
</ul>
Greening solutions aren’t simple
The benefits green spaces provide are also influenced by local context: climate, inequity and social disadvantage, culture, or resident/user age and gender.
However, if green spaces are well designed with community input, these local factors can provide opportunities to maximise impact. For example, green space can be more beneficial when provided in areas of social disadvantage with limited existing green space, and trees provide more cooling benefits in hotter cities.
There are no magic bullets. If green spaces aren’t well designed, for example, trees can:
<ul>
<li>reduce the area available for some active sports;</li>
<li>shade rooftop solar panels;
</li>
<li>reduce flower, fruit and vegetable production;</li>
<li>create mess through fallen leaves; and</li>
<li>create unsuitable habitat for other kinds of plants and animals.
</li>
</ul>
These complex interactions highlight the need for academics and practitioners to work collaboratively across disciplines and sectors. These should include urban planning, public health, urban ecology, urban forestry, engineering, community development and economics. Knowledge needs to be shared and translated into action.
Our green cities of the future need to be designed to benefit human (and non-human) residents equitably. We need to move beyond a reliance on backyards and parks that were designed according to 19th-century principles (and using 19th-century species).
Cities need green spaces that are well designed, creatively delivered, accessible to all, and managed and maintained with appropriate resources to ensure long-term quality and availability.
 
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/melanie-davern-144750" target="_blank">Melanie Davern </a>is Senior Research Fellow, Healthy Liveable Cities Group, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University.  <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alison-farrar-357347" target="_blank">Alison Farrar </a>is Research Assistant, School of Ecosystem &amp; Forest Sciences, University of Melbourne.  <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dave-kendal-180942" target="_blank">Dave Kendal </a>is Research Fellow, School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences and the Clean Air and Urban Landscape hub of the National Environmental Science Program, University of Melbourne. <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/lucy-gunn-146721" target="_blank">Lucy Gunn </a>is Research Fellow, Community Indicators Victoria, McCaughey VicHealth Community Wellbeing Unit, University of Melbourne.
All are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Higher-density cities need greening to stay healthy and liveable

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/75689/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVERS
Peter Jackson employed an intricate approach to the stage design of Lord of the Rings. The people who inhabited Middle Earth for hundreds of generations slowly left cultural traces, alterations, artefacts and remnants of their human existence on the environment. 
For example, the cinematographic stage set for Rivendell gives the viewer the impression of use and legacy over generations. Stage designers aged artefacts and applied, erased and reapplied cultural marks and insignia to “make” Rivendell the special and legendary place that author J.R.R. Tolkien had intended.
<h2>Placemaking</h2>
Urban space turns into place in a similar way. People are natural placemakers. 
When they live in cities, they create “livehoods”, build, modify, decorate, expand and renovate. In doing so, they slowly leave their mark on the city.
In the 1960s, progressive urban planners and designers like Jane Jacobsand William H. Whyte argued that catering for slow pedestrians rather than fast cars results in better city design. 
Placemaking can make places “sticky,” so people dwell longer, customers spend more in retail shops, and students stay on campus.
Trying to accommodate sustained high levels of growth, coupled with the need to contain urban sprawl, has led to the rapid gentrification of inner-city suburbs. As construction companies are trying to keep up with the mandate to grow Australian cities, they won’t slow down easily.
Placemaking is being used to quickly breathe life into new urban developments. Speedy placemaking is of the essence when generic turnkey residential stock is sold as “vibrant communities”, “liveable neighbourhoods” and “distinctive precincts”.
<h2>Cookie-cutter cities</h2>
Accelerated placemaking poses several risks.
<ol>
<li>
Places come with history and heritage to be conserved and protected. Digital storytelling has been used as a form of digital placemaking that not only enables the study of a place’s history, but also ways of embedding and commemorating historic evidence and artefacts in place.
</li>
<li>
To avoid making places that suit the placemakers and their funders more than the current or future occupants, inclusive practices of placemaking are needed. Marginalised and economically threatened communities should be enabled to engage with their neighbourhood on their own terms and create their own urban imaginaries. This requires transdisciplinary, participatory and action researchapproaches to placemaking.
</li>
<li>
Placemaking can fuel further gentrification with its well-known set of associated issues and consequences. Activating places often aims at making nearby retail and residential properties more profitable. Yet genuine and slow placemaking can add further value by unlocking a city’s diversity advantage.
</li>
<li>
Many placemaking techniques such as urban hacktivism and urban acupuncture tend to be small and hyperlocal. They have been criticised for being limited in scale and impact. Can placemaking through DIY urban design scale up from subversive citymaking to systemic change?
</li>
<li>
Contemporary placemaking relies more and more on stereotypes. An example is the iconic architectures of kerbside coffee shops. Christian Norberg-Schulz speaks of the genius loci as a fundamental element of placemaking: the essence of a place that makes it unique. 
</li>
</ol>
This approach seems currently ignored in favour of a cookie-cutter approach. Copying success stories – Venice in Vegas, for example – is a constant in architecture and urban design. But the trends of tactical urbanism, pop-up interventions and gentrification actually risk impoverishing our urban landscape and our urban ecologies.
<h2>Slow cities</h2>
In addition to a set of ongoing challenges, there are exciting opportunities on the horizon for slowing down placemaking and for placemaking to slow down cities.
Our fast-paced world of automation and smart cities prioritises speed and efficiency. Yet the health and wellbeing of city residents can be improved by slowing down. 
This is about not only a slower pace of pedestrian flow, traffic and life in public spaces. It also relates to appreciating artisan crafts, food provenance, seasonal changes, local customs, and even boredom and getting lost. In Australia, the cities of Goolwa (South Australia), Katoomba (New South Wales) and Yea (Victoria) have joined Cittaslow – “the international network of cities where living is good.”
This “slow cities” movement promotes the use of technology. Yet this is different to how technology is portrayed in many smart city visions, which liken cities to corporations that are about growth, efficiency and productivity. However, a city is neither a business nor a computer.
<h2>Making cities collaboratively</h2>
Revisiting Henri Lefebvre’s “right to the city,” we understand placemaking as a strategy to bring about much-needed social change and urban renewal through grassroots democratisation. 
Cities often invite people as participants in urban planning decision-making. Yet why limit people to just providing feedback to city governments as part of conventional community consultation processes? Genuine placemaking regards them as co-creators in collaborative citymaking.
The exposure to diverse ideas, places and communities is crucial for innovation and the functioning of democracy. We believe placemaking can help develop a better dialogue between citizens, communities, government, businesses, civic groups and non-profits. 
Placemaking is meant to provide a close connection between people and their locale. Placemaking has to be specific and unique to urban space, taking into account its community, environment, culture, food and social practices.
Finally, cities certainly need to face up to the challenges of climate change. Placemaking provides opportunities for more sustainable ways of life not only by creating accessible, healthy, democratic and slow cities, but also by imagining the post-anthropocentric city.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/marcus-foth-199317" target="_blank">Marcus Foth </a>is professor of Urban Informatics, Director, QUT Design Lab, Queensland University of Technology.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/mirko-guaralda-355387" target="_blank">Mirko Guaralda</a> is senior lecturer in Architecture, Queensland University of Technology.
Both are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

We should create cities for slowing down

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/67223/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Do you ever feel that the weather is worse on the weekend? Well you might be right!
Our research, published in Environmental Research Letters, shows that in Australia’s biggest cites, the temperature is on average up to 0.3℃ cooler on Sundays compared to Thursdays and Fridays.
Not only are humans affecting the temperature on a global scale, we’re also doing it in our own backyards. 
There is nothing in nature that occurs on a weekly cycle. Therefore any weekly pattern seen in weather (such as temperature and rainfall) must result from human activity, such as generating electricity, powering motor vehicles and using air-conditioners. 
Most of these activities deposit waste heat and pollution into the atmosphere, and weekly cycles in temperature provide valuable insights into the consequences of such activities on the urban environment. 
Our study shows that weekly cycles in daytime temperature occur in almost all Australian major cities. Sundays are often the coolest and Thursday or Friday the hottest due to human activity. This differs according to the time of day, with early mornings showing a much stronger signal than the afternoon. 
<h2>Rush hour weekly cycle</h2>
Early mornings are often associated with cooler air temperatures, which can trap any waste heat near the surface. By contrast, in the afternoon the temperature has warmed and the local surface heat can be carried away to higher levels. So we see less of a strong relationship between human activity and temperature.
Hence the 9am temperature is higher during the week (coinciding with the morning rush hour) and much cooler on the weekend (when the traffic volume is quieter).
<a href="/images/2016/10/19/image-20161018-12447-dxp8ox.jpeg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/10/19/image-20161018-12447-dxp8ox.jpeg" alt="">
<h4>Melbourne 1955-2013 average midnight and morning (9am) temperature</h4>
Melbourne and other major Australian cities are cooler at the weekend during the day, because they’re less busy. But what about night life? 
In western cultures, with Saturdays and Sundays being days off work for a large proportion of the population, Friday and Saturday evenings have become popular with people going to restaurants, pubs, and theatres. This means there is more traffic and human activities in the city centres on these evenings through to the early hours of the following day. 
Melbourne’s midnight temperature is warmest on Saturday (Friday night) and Sunday (Saturday night), which is the opposite to what we see for 9am.
<h2>Islands of heat</h2>
Cities are also generally warmer than their surroundings, a phenomena known as the “urban heat island” effect. Don’t rush off to the beach though – it’s only hotter in the city. We can see this in weekly temperatures by comparing city centres to surrounding suburbs. 
When we compare Melbourne city temperature to the airport temperatures at Tullamarine, Laverton and Moorabbin, the city is a lot warmer than the airports, especially at night time. This difference is largest on Saturdays and Sundays, showing that Melbourne’s active night-life is increasing the urban heat island effect. 
<a href="/images/2016/10/19/image-20161018-12431-l50gel.jpeg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2016/10/19/image-20161018-12431-l50gel.jpeg" alt="">
<h4> </h4>
<h4>1972-2013 average difference between Melbourne city temperature airport temperatures at midnight and 9am.</h4>
The difference is less in the morning, especially on Saturdays and Sundays. There is even a small urban cool island on Sunday mornings compared to some suburbs.
Temperatures are closely linked to traffic volumes within cities. These can be used as a good indicator of the overall level of human activity.
<a href="/images/2016/10/19/image-20161018-12425-1cxmspl.jpeg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<h4><img src="/images/2016/10/19/image-20161018-12425-1cxmspl.jpeg" alt=""></h4>
<h4>Traffic volume at a typical Melbourne CBD junction during October 2014.</h4>
Consistent with traffic volumes (at a typical busy inner-city intersection), temperatures on Sunday mornings are much less than weekday mornings. It’s this difference in morning traffic that allows us to measure the difference of the city without cars (Sunday) and with cars (Monday to Friday) at the same time of day.
Figures show that traffic congestion costs about A$4.6 billion in Melbourne each year. Reducing this is high on the agenda for Infrastructure Victoria and the state government, putting forward numerous traffic reducing strategies including peak-time penalties for motorists and a London-style congestion charge for central Melbourne. 
Beyond Victoria, the Australian government is concerned with the need to create cooler, greener and more liveable cities in the face of climate change. 
Reducing traffic has obvious benefits for travel time and sanity, but our study shows that Melbourne is significantly cooler when traffic levels (and general human activity) are low, based on the weekly cycles of urban temperatures.
Nick Earl is postdoctoral associate, School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nick-earl-309773" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

City Living

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

City Living

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News