Town Planning

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION 
It was no April fool’s joke when the <a href="https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/" target="_blank">Rockefeller Foundation</a> announced it will phase out funding for the <a href="https://www.100resilientcities.org/" target="_blank">100 Resilient Cities</a> network. The foundation’s <a href="https://www.100resilientcities.org/update-from-100rc/" target="_blank">message</a> was a <a href="https://www.citylab.com/environment/2019/04/rockefeller-100-resilient-cities-climate-philanthropy-end/586522/" target="_blank">surprise for many participating cities</a>, including Melbourne and Sydney, and for its partnering non-governmental organisations, businesses and academics.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk6B8PJAB4M" target="_blank">100 Resilient Cities</a> is a global network designed to increase urban resilience, <a href="http://www.100resilientcities.org/resources/" target="_blank">defined</a> as: "the capacity of individuals, communities, institutions, businesses, and systems within a city to survive, adapt, and grow no matter what kinds of chronic stresses and acute shocks they experience."
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

What next after 100 Resilient Cities funding ends?

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The announcement that President Joko Widodo’s government will <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-29/jakarta-to-no-longer-be-capital-of-indonesia-planning-minister/11056306" target="_blank">move Indonesia’s capital</a> to another location, due to the severity of <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-29/jakarta,-a-city-under-pressure-from-a-growing-population/8480226" target="_blank">human-induced degradation in Jakarta</a>, highlights a key tension for cities today. In the face of increasingly unsustainable urban environments, do we retrofit existing cities, or relocate and build new cities to achieve greater sustainability?
The answer is both. But each has its challenges.
Creating new cities
The goal of turning cities from sustainability problems to solutions is driving a suite of “future city” innovations. These include the planning and development of whole new cities.
An <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/08/smart-cities-forest-city-belmont/" target="_blank">increasing number of countries</a> are planning to build cities from scratch using technological innovation to achieve more sustainable urban development. <a href="https://www.nst.com.my/property/2018/09/411211/forest-city-%E2%80%94-model-other-cities" target="_blank">Forest City in Malaysia</a>, <a href="http://smartcityaz.com/" target="_blank">Belmont smart city</a> in the United States and the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/aug/06/five-years-ago-there-was-nothing-inside-duqm-the-city-rising-from-the-sand-oman-city-sand-luxury-hotels-housing" target="_blank">Sino-Oman Industrial City</a> are just some of the examples.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ctkERUu7sdU?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" width="440" height="260"></iframe>
Forest City is Malaysia’s biggest development project.
The urban ambition includes creating carless and walkable cities, green cities able to produce oxygen through eco-skyscrapers, high-speed internet embedded in the urban fabric, the capacity to convert waste into energy, and reclaiming land to create new strategic trade opportunities.
However, striking the right balance between innovative ideas and democratic expectations, including the public right to the city, remains a challenge.
<a href="http://www.mxcfilm.com/" target="_blank">The Minnesota Experimental City</a> offers a cautionary tale. The aim was to solve urban problems by creating a new city. It would use the latest technology including nuclear energy, automated cars and a domed roof enclosure.
Despite significant government and financial backing, including its own state agency, the Minnesota project failed due to a lack of public understanding and local support for a top-down futuristic project.
Who gets left behind?
In 1960, Brazil moved its capital from Rio de Janeiro to the futuristic city of <a href="https://brasilialifeafterdesign.com/" target="_blank">Brasilia</a>. While the city was designed to accommodate both rich and poor, it quickly became unaffordable for the average family. Half a century on, it was <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20632277" target="_blank">reported</a>: "The poor have been shunted out to satellite cities, which range from proper well-built cities to something more like a shanty town."
In Indonesia, more than 30 million people – <a href="https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/09/20/the-need-a-national-urban-development-policy-indonesia" target="_blank">a fifth of the nation’s urban residents</a> and more than a tenth of the <a href="http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/indonesia-population/" target="_blank">269 million population</a> – live in Greater Jakarta. The capital city Jakarta is just one part of a larger mega-city agglomeration, the world’s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakarta" target="_blank">second-largest after Greater Tokyo</a>. This vast connected urban meta-region is known as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabodetabek" target="_blank">Jabodetabek</a>, from the initials of the cities within it: Jakarta (with a population of 10 million), Bogor (1 million), Depok (2.1 million), Tangerang (2 million), South Tangerang (1.5 million) and Bekasi (2.7 million).
A key reason for moving the capital is that Jakarta is prone to serious flooding and is <a href="https://www.deltares.nl/app/uploads/2015/09/Sinking-cities.pdf" target="_blank">rapidly sinking</a>. Jakarta also suffers <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-29/jakarta,-a-city-under-pressure-from-a-growing-population/8480226" target="_blank">overpopulation, severe traffic gridlock, slums</a> and a lack of critical urban infrastructure such as drainage and sanitation.
Relocating the capital away from the <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-29/jakarta-to-no-longer-be-capital-of-indonesia-planning-minister/11056306" target="_blank">crowded main island of Java</a> offers the opportunity to better plan the political and administrative centre using the latest urban design features and technology.
Two key questions arise. If environmental degradation and overpopulation are the key issues, what will become of the largely remaining population of Greater Jakarta? At a national scale, how will this relocation help overcome the <a href="https://theconversation.com/two-decades-of-economic-growth-benefited-only-the-richest-20-how-severe-is-inequality-in-indonesia-101138" target="_blank">socio-economic and spatial disparities</a> that exist in Indonesia?
Egypt, for example, is <a href="https://theconversation.com/egypt-is-building-a-new-capital-city-from-scratch-heres-how-to-avoid-inequality-and-segregation-103402" target="_blank">building a new capital city</a> to overcome severe urban congestion and overcrowding in Greater Cairo. But there is no guarantee the new capital will resolve these issues if the emphasis is solely on technological innovation, without adequate attention to urban equity and fairness.
More of the same in Australia
The Australian population is <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/3222.0" target="_blank">projected to grow to 36 million in the next 30 years</a>. This is focusing political, policy and public attention on what this means for the future of the nation’s cities.
Despite all the advances that have occurred in technology, the arts, architecture, design and the sciences, there is surprisingly little innovation or public discussion about what might be possible for 21st-century Australian settlements beyond the capital cities.
Future Australian city planning and development focuses largely on enlarging and intensifying the footprints of existing major cities. The current urban policy trajectory is in-fill development and expansion of the existing state capital mega-city regions, where <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/3218.0Main%20Features12017-18?opendocument&amp;tabname=Summary&amp;prodno=3218.0&amp;issue=2017-18&amp;num=&amp;view=" target="_blank">two-thirds of the population live</a>. But what is lost through this approach?
In Australia only two ambitious “new city” plans have been put forward in the last 50 years: <a href="https://crawford.anu.edu.au/pdf/pep/pep-283.pdf" target="_blank">the Multifunction Polis</a> (MFP) and <a href="http://www.clara.com.au/index" target="_blank">the CLARA Plan</a>.
In the late 1980s the MFP was envisaged as a high-tech city of the future with nuclear power, modern communication and Asian investment. It failed to gain the necessary political, investment and public support and was never built.
The current CLARA Plan proposes building up to eight new regional smart cities connected by a high-speed rail system linking Sydney and Melbourne via Canberra. Each of these cities is designed to be compact, environmentally sustainable and just a quick train trip away from the capital cities.
CLARA has outlined a “<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-value-capture-and-what-does-it-mean-for-cities-58776" target="_blank">value capture</a>” business model based on private city land development, not “government coffer” funding. How these new cities propose to function within the constitutional framework of Australia is as yet unclear and untested.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7FJ7sXTdQ2k?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" width="440" height="260"></iframe>
The privately funded CLARA plan is to build up to eight compact, sustainable, smart cities connected via high-speed rail.
A bipartisan challenge
Are we thinking too narrowly when we talk about future Australian cities?
The “future city” prompts us to rethink and re-imagine the complex nature and make-up of our urban settlements, and the role of critical infrastructure and planning within them.
The future of Australian cities will require creativity, vision (even courage) to respond effectively to the challenges and opportunities of sustainable development.
This will not be the remit of any one political party, but a bipartisan national urban settlement agenda that affects and involves all Australians.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/116266/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;">
Wendy Steele, Associate Professor, Centre of Urban Research and Urban Futures Enabling Capability Platform, 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/indonesia-isnt-the-only-country-planning-new-cities-why-not-australia-116266" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Indonesia isn’t the only country planning new cities. Why not Australia?

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Cities are seeing a growing number of shared working, or co-working, spaces. They include spaces where individuals and businesses can flexibly rent desks or rooms, or do shared work in “third spaces” such as libraries and cafes.
Co-working spaces offer a range of benefits and risks to the local economy. Our research looked at the role policy-makers, regulators and city planners can play in ensuring that these spaces make a positive contribution to our cities.
We found shared work spaces emerging in regulatory voids left by outdated policy frameworks. To exist, they are relying on the forward thinking of local innovators seeking to revitalise urban centres.
Types of spaces
Shared work spaces vary by the type of work they facilitate, from knowledge work (such as IT and professional services) to small-scale manufacturing. Some are purpose-built for co-working, whereas others (such as cafes) are informally used as such.
Some also target particular markets by offering additional services such as a crèche for childcare, seminars for professional development and events for networking.
Shared working spaces also differ in their models of ownership. These range from privately owned and managed, to government subsidised and cooperatively managed community resource centres.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217491/original/file-20180503-153884-q4pery.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Pubs, such as this one in London, can become informal shared work spaces. Carey Curtis
The ownership and funding of individual co-working spaces may also change through time, as they may receive new sources of government funding, attract new types of clients or relocate to new facilities.
What are the benefits?
There are many potential benefits for sharing a working space, including access to common spaces, equipment, tools, and technologies. Some people may only need a space for a few hours a day or on one occasion for a special project, so they can hire spaces in desirable locations without high rental charges.
Shared working spaces also offer social benefits through greater opportunities to interact, network and collaborate with like-minded workers.
A co-working space can be a good use of unused spaces in buildings and be birthing places of new enterprises. They can also support local businesses by hosting large groups of potential customers.
And they may afford people a place to work closer from home, reducing the need for long commutes.
What are the downsides?
Big players in the sharing economy – such as Uber, Lyft and Airbnb – have had a disruptive effect on existing markets by reducing opportunities for less advantaged people and workers in the market, and confusing regulators.
A similar scale of disruption may be on the horizon with the rapid growth of big players in co-working spaces such as WeWork. These could threaten existing shared work spaces by absorbing customers and competitively leasing out available buildings.
Shared work spaces could potentially contribute to the gentrification of older neighbourhoods by pushing up the price of real estate, and displacing established small businesses and residential tenants.
Co-working spaces has also been seen as representative of an increasing casualised workforce, as such spaces may host short-term contractors doing work that was previously performed by full-time internal staff members.
What we found
We analysed planning and economic development policy and interviewed founders and users of shared working spaces in Western Australia.
We identified around 20 shared work spaces in Perth and regional Western Australia. Many were in retrofitted older and under-used buildings such as an old department store, maternity hospital or converted office space.
Most founders told us that shared working spaces needed to be accessible to be viable. Many also identified the quality and intensity of activities around the area as essential to attracting workers to their space.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217489/original/file-20180503-138586-nkkep4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Shared work spaces can facilitate knowledge work, as well as manufacturing (like this one in Fremantle, WA). Carey Curtis
But founders identified regulatory frameworks, including land use permission controls, as significant barriers to establishing these spaces. For instance, a shared work space where people repair furniture or make jewellery could be considered as being used for manufacturing.
This type of activity may not be permitted in a disused department store that falls within a retail zone.
We found that often, local councillors and economic developers, have thrown their hat in the ring to help establish shared work spaces in their area. They would do so by helping founders secure required approvals, such as building accessibility certifications and emergency management plans.
Knowing the potential contribution of such spaces to the economy, they’ve also helped founders navigate regulations and planning controls intended for more permanent use of spaces.
But we found that town planners were rarely engaged in early conversations with shared work space founders. Planners generally didn’t identify or facilitate opportunities to host shared working spaces in unused buildings.
Planning policy documents and city planning departments didn’t actively recognise co-working spaces as a major new way people use buildings in cities.
Sharing spaces better
Technologies are creating new ways to match a mobile and flexible workforce with work spaces. This is leaving regulators to manage the impacts from the temporary uses of many shared work spaces.
City planners should be prepared to recognise and plan for the benefits these spaces bring, while minimising possible negative impacts on users, neighbours, and the broader community.
Planning strategies that seek to regenerate urban places and provide economic and social opportunities in urban growth areas will need to prompt more engagement with shared work space proponents, users, neighbouring businesses and residents, and local government divisions.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95923/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Shared work spaces have a positive role to play in Australian cities and regional centres. However, it seems planners are at risk of missing the boat when it comes to using shared work space to achieve more socially and economically viable planning outcomes.
Courtney Babb, Lecturer in Urban &amp; Regional Planning, Curtin University
Carey Curtis, Professor of City Planning and Transport, Curtin University
Sam McLeod, Urban Planning Researcher, Curtin University
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/co-working-spaces-are-part-of-the-new-economy-so-town-planners-better-get-with-the-times-95923" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Co-working spaces are part of the new economy, so town planners better get with the times

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
City planning has many approaches that have been used to enable better economic, social and environmental outcomes.
The planning profession has been doing strategic assessments of urban land development opportunities and constraints for over a hundred years but has only recently adopted the techniques of strategic environmental assessment (SEA), a tool developed by the environmental assessment profession.
The draft Green Growth Plan for Perth is a federal and state government initiative to trial whether SEA can be integrated into the planning of an Australian city. It is a process in parallel with the traditional strategic plan, which in Perth is the draft Perth and Peel @ 3.5 Million Plan.
Town planning and environmental assessment have largely been competing for the past 30 years to show who knows best about managing urban land. Planning has mostly been setting broad strategic directions based on infrastructure and land zoning, with day-to-day statutory planning devolved to local governments on what should be approved or modified. Environmental protection authorities (EPAs) have set major strategic directions about protection of biodiversity, water and other resources like basic raw materials, as well as making day-to-day decisions on major projects.
Often the division of labour has been to have planning in control of cities and EPAs doing most of the work in regions. This is especially the case in a state like Western Australia where most major projects are in the regions. 
EPAs get to provide an opinion on urban land releases or urban regeneration projects, but mostly town planning has the final say in cities. However, there has been a sense that the cumulative effects of lots of small incremental planning decisions, especially urban sprawl, could be having serious impacts on biodiversity, water and the availability of resources like basic raw materials. Growing disquiet about town planning’s ability to manage the environmental side of cities has led to the development of strategic environmental assessment.
SEA takes a broad approach to a large land area and assesses the cumulative impacts over a planning horizon of 50 years or more. The techniques when applied to cities have been based on a combination of old tools, like the McHarg overlays of all the different landscape features from the 1960s, as well as 21st-century tools of digital visualisation and modelling.
SEAs have been sold as helping to reduce the time and cost of environmental and planning approvals. With a strategic plan adopted, it not only shows where development should be avoided but clears the way for development in other areas. So it promises better environmental outcomes and faster processes.
<h2>Perth pioneers whole-city SEA</h2>
The SEA process is legislated under the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act while town planning is a state responsibility. The SEA promises much and has been helpful in a number of regional assessments across Australia, including two fringe areas of Melbourne and Sydney. Applying this process to whole cities is a different matter, so many people have been closely watching the first SEA of a city in Australia – the Green Growth Plan for Perth.
The draft report was guided by a partnership between the federal environment department and 20 state government agencies represented on the state steering committee. The report has much detail on “matters of national environmental significance” (MNES). In other SEAs there have been impacts on seven to nine MNES; the Perth Green Growth Plan has impacts on 92 MNES. This is partly due to the complexities of a large city SEA, but mostly it is due to Perth being in the heart of a major global biodiversity hotspot.
There is a recommendation to set aside for protection a further 170,000 hectares of natural areas. Most of this is in government ownership but 20,000 ha needs to be purchased.
In terms of contiguous green belts that can enable biodiversity to be managed, the majority of the natural space to be set aside is in the northern corridor. In reality this corridor is already close to 100 kilometres long and the cessation of development here will only be mourned by a few developers. Most of the damage has been done.
The southern corridor has much fewer constraints on development. The area is mostly poor agricultural land, so the Green Growth Plan suggests a few small areas for protection. It also proposes some significant new measures to avert decline in the Peel Harvey estuary, notably regulation to improve farm fertiliser management.
Thus, if the SEA is to enable faster development, it will be in the southern corridor along the Kwinana Freeway heading beyond Mandurah towards Bunbury.
<h2>Filling in the grey areas</h2>
Should this plan be adopted as the basis of Perth’s long-term future? In terms of environmental protection, especially biodiversity, it is a strong statement. It is a literal line in the sand, especially to the north where Perth has sprawled for the past 40 years.
But it is not the whole story. The federal government’s new Smart Cities Plan is designed to help cities do more innovative planning. In particular, it is trying to enable 30-minute cities.
This has been highlighted in much planning discourse as the basis of a more sustainable, liveable and productive city as the travel time budget is being exceeded in all our big cities. As shown below, Sydney has been over 30 minutes for a long time. Perth moved rapidly into this league in its recent boom.
Quite simply this means we need more urban regeneration and less urban sprawl. How do we do this?
Greenfield development is easy because developers can roll out large precincts for development. Brownfield development on old industrial sites in the inner-city areas (like Docklands in Melbourne and Barangaroo in Sydney) are also relatively easy as they are big sites.
But in between we have millions of individual lots, all owned privately. Here, the only option for developers is to do low-quality infill in backyards. This is not working.
To redevelop in these greyfields requires creative, clever planning that finds large sites for regeneration and brings all the owners together, as occurred recently in Castle Hill, St Leonards and Baulkham Hills in Sydney. Unlocking the area for regeneration, using significant innovations in buildings, energy, water, waste, walkability, jobs, services and biodiversity, requires the creation of significant amenity.
This is the basis of the entrepreneur rail model that is meant to provide a rail link to enable such urban activity. The Smart Cities Plan wants cities to prepare City Deals that set out how they can do such things.
The Green Growth Plan is a good base to work from, but it cannot be all that is needed for a future town plan. The draft Perth and Peel @ 3.5 Million Plan suggests ways to consolidate 47 percent of the next period of urban growth. It suggests that 100 percent consolidation would be too difficult.
The redevelopment agenda could do with a makeover in Perth to further complement the Green Growth Plan. More Smart City ideas are needed or else the never-ending sprawl of our cities will continue its unsustainable and unproductive march.
 
Peter Newman is professor of Sustainability, Curtin University and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-newman-1858" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Town Planning

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Town Planning

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News