Liveable Neighbourhoods - Does it achieve its objectives?
In particular, does Liveable Neighbourhoods really result in better living environments, and does it assist community development?
AIUS (WA)
LIVEABLE NEIGHBOURHOODS FORUM
BRASS MONKEY HOTEL, NORTHBRIDGE
7 JULY 2011
The AIUS (WA) holds forums for professionals involved in city planning and design as well as the public. The aim of these events is to allow individuals to express their views on circumstances associated with Government planning policies, public and private development projects, and emerging trends associated with our urban environment. Proceedings from the forums are then circulated to Government agencies and interested groups in the hope that concerns raised by professionals and the public may be addressed.
Approximately 80 people attended this forum on Liveable Neighbourhoods. Attendees comprised planners, architects, developers, urban designers and members of the public. Five speakers address the audience for five minutes each presenting their overview of Liveable Neighbourhoods. Questions and statements from the audience followed. Below is a summary of the points made by each speaker as well as the questions and comments from the audience.
This summary is circulated to interested parties and placed on the AIUS Web Site.
Speakers
Richard Weller
1. Discrepancy between the content of LN and reality of our suburban environment.
2. A questionable basis in New Urbanism, such as the walkable ‘milk' catchment.
3. The Transect is problematic in that it requires order when reality is messy and routine formulas can't be applied.
4. Need a fundamental shift in urban design practice, theory and guidelines away from cosmetic / aesthetic urban design principles to a systems approach.
5. Questionable growth statistics - ABS mid-range planned for, Perth is going to double.
6. LN density approach takes the amenity out of suburbs however we need to put density where the amenity is.
Alan Tranter
1. Great concern that the development industry thinks design is the answer.
2. A social tsunami is coming and design won't be able to address social ills, we're too far down the dark tunnel to reverse out.
3. A new trend emerging where the industry is teaming up with other organisations without ‘tunnel vision'. For example, health study reveals that with improved paths, people will increase walking by 6 minutes a week.
4. All of our health indicators show we are going backwards.
5. Health promotion is not successful, can't tell people what to do, legislation is the only chance.
6. Top health issues are isolation, followed by a feeling of hopeless about today and a lack of ability to influence tomorrow
7. Need resources and energy to improve people's skills and competitiveness, develop business and local employment.
Emerson Richardson
1. Is the safety and amenity of local streets impacted by too much emphasis being given to traffic movement?
2. LN has been successful in creating better connected street networks.
3. LN has been less successful in individual street design, delivering too many streets that permit or encourage drivers to travel too fast.
4. LN should establish principles for street design, not guidelines specifying street profiles that are used (often inappropriately) as a minimum design standard.
5. The factor of safety in local street design works in reverse with "bigger" and "wider" likely to result in a reduced level of safety.
6. Street trees that create a sense of enclosure and reduce forward vision can reduce driver speed and improve safety.
Brett Woodgush
1. We know so many of the problem issues are not properly recognised in LN.
2. Need to address better coordination of land development and infrastructure - need government to be involved early to invest in infrastructure.
3. LN doesn't address re-development which needs to be part of the document.
4. 10% POS not matching people's recreational needs - resulting in vast quantities of land for environmental values.
5. Need to address efficient land use.
6. Need to consider what Activity Centres really are.
7. Need to stop over-engineering roads.
Ian Holloway
1. In the development of LN, exciting ideas were slammed in the process resulting in a compromised document.
2. LN has made amazing changes and contributions to improve urban design, although we need to acknowledge its short-comings.
3. Disconnect between planning and built form - planners focus is on numbers not occupants.
4. Sustainability aspects - never finished, no direction given to the industry, impending 6 star rating going to be very difficult to achieve solar orientation.
5. Opportunity to connect LN and R-Codes is not done.
6. Best element of LN is DAPs (Detailed Area Plans) which can lead to good outcomes
7. LN was always meant to be a live document, intended to keep evolving and moving forward. People should take opportunity to be involved.
Audience Comments/Discussion
1. Concern that health and sustainability (peak oil, climate change) is not addressed sufficiently. LN is in the past. It needs to address future issues.
2. How long is the review going to take? What is the program at DoP? Needs to be pushed by the industry/participants.
3. Given Directions 2031 goals, need a directional shift in policy to achieve a liveable ‘urban' neighbourhood, we need to move into new territory.
4. LN has produced suburban vs urban environment, therefore need new document for urban environment.
5. All policies need updating. LN is stretched to cover all aspects.
6. Most of Perth development has occurred since surge in car ownership. We can't avoid planning for car and suburban lifestyle.
7. Need to address key issue of affordable higher density and better range of alternatives on the fringe. We have to work with developers, such as a 5 metre lot response. We need to accept outward growth.
8. Planned badly with too much focus on the use of private vehicles, no walking / bad public transport.
9. LN can never be a total response.
10. We need to consider housing needs vs density and business needs/destinations. People need more gravity and reason to be in a place or centre. Keep people and liveability at the centre of the LN.
11. Disconnect between infrastructure engineers and planners. Need to work together. We need infrastructure to reach targets, need economists, need more integration across the system.
12. More integrated thinking across disciplines, although individuals object, better way is to regulate policy.
13. Need to explain choices to people. Ask what type of city they want. Although you don't get rewarded for taking leadership, we rely on regulatory authorities.
14. Over reliance on performance criteria taken as standards which reduces innovation. We need more focus on the objectives.
15. Entropic urbanism or lack of strict urban order could be a way of the future.
16. Need to address housing size and plot ratio controls. Why are we afraid of multi-story?
17. Other Government departments need to be involved in developing LN. For example the Department of Housing is developing innovative approaches which should be reflected in LN.
18. Changing is coming as people become more educated and knowledgeable. We need to examine who benefits from the status quo and get those people into the conversation. Ministers and the public policy people need to be part of the general debate and learn what people have to say. They need to work through the vision and objectives of LN in terms of what they mean to the community, not just Government.