Saturday 23 January 2010

East Perth


As a true example of new-urbanist neighbourhood design, East Perth will always be at the top of any list of such places. Previously a run-down neighbourhood 2km east of the city centre, a redevelopment authority was set up (removing planning powers from the City of Perth) to transform the area into a mixed-use mecca that ticks all of the new urbanist design boxes. It has been done well - a range of different types of buildings of all ages have been retained, the street system updated and new buildings constructed to make for a diverse and interesting area.

The best feature of East Perth is Claisebrook Cove - a man-made cove following the path of a long-buried natural waterway. Around the Cove you will find terrace housing, a tavern, cafés, an art gallery, apartments and a hotel.

However, a walk around the area will soon reveal that it is a little too quiet. There seems to be little life on the streets. The cafés, although busy, are not bustling, the parks are enjoyed by few people. Nearby is a TAFE, train station, CAT bus, shops, offices, apartments, warehouses - in fact anything that fits within a definition of a mixed use neighbourhood. The place scores 77/100 on walkscore.com, a respectable figure. So it should be all accounts be busier.

East Perth has had at least 15 years to mature, so it is not on account of infancy. My guess is that density is the issue - and that the area is separated from a larger catchment area by a freeway to the north, river to the east and large sporting fields to the south. Jane Jacobs was known to advocate much higher residential densities than was being developed in New York in the 1950s, so perhaps we are underachieving in developing the kind of densities required to create active places.

Sunday 17 January 2010

Score your neighbourhood for walkability

The website Walk Score has for about a year now been calculating the walkability of American neighbourhoods. Now it is available for Australian cities, as i discovered by chance yesterday.

My place in Joondanna, in Perth's middle suburbs, scores a reasonable 60/100, despite being a good 10 minute walk from anything. But we are moving in a couple of weeks to Highgate in Perth's inner suburbs. As expected, it scores a much higher 85/100. Here's what the map looks like:
As you can see, it pulls a lot of information from Google maps including restaurants, schools, hardware stores, cinemas, and other destinations. Interestingly, it also provides results in kilometres (not miles).

It's a great tool for town planners everywhere, as well as house-hunting.

What does your neighbourhood score?

Critique of the draft Multi Unit Housing Code

I recently made a submission on the draft Multi Unit Housing Code - which is an amendment to Western Australia's Residential Design Codes to re-write the provisions relating to multiple dwellings (i.e. apartments). Enjoy.

As a local government planner of five years in a fast-growing area, it is great to see the WAPC review the R-Codes to provide better guidelines for multiple dwellings. It is especially of interest to note the incentives being provided to developers for multiple dwellings.


By the way, my personal opinions expressed in this submission do not reflect that of any local government.


I first heard of the multi-unit housing code at a forum on affordable housing a while back, and asked the question of the developer representative, did he think the proposed codes would provide an incentive for developers to provide affordable housing. He responded emphatically in the affirmative. It was only later on when some local governments were given an opportunity to comment on the preliminary multi-unit housing codes that I noted it was true; there is definitely an incentive, by virtue of total floorspace limitations rather than dwelling number or size limitations being used, for smaller dwellings, and more of them. The general premise behind the proposed Codes in providing affordable housing is sound, simple, and is supported.


Richard Wellar in Boomtown 2050 notes that there were two stages of flat building in Perth – one in the 1930s and the next in the 1960s. The flats of the 1960s were appalling, and local governments revolted. Thanks to the Le Corbusier-inspired flats of doom, Councils everywhere imposed height restrictions and the dream of height was lost. Even 45 years later Perth remains generally acrophobic and the R-Codes two-storey default height limit has only supported the expanse of single-storey houses and villas de costa in an expanding suburban city.


The current drive to Build a Better Planning System has finally put an impetus on what urban designers have been telling us for years now, that we cannot continue pushing out suburbia with all its general malaise (so any planner will tell anyone who will listen). Regardless of the right or wrong, home owners deserve a choice in housing that goes beyond what colour the walls of their 4 by 2 should be painted.


In reviewing the R-Codes (variation 2), I have concentrated on built form. After all, it was the poor built form of the 1960s flats that caused the huge backlash against multiple dwellings. And it wasn’t just height; a range of general design failings coupled with the intended demographics of the occupiers of these flats (i.e. social housing recipients). The following table shows the many failings of the 1960s flats, an alternate design response, and whether the R-Codes (variation 2) addresses a design response (i.e., does the R-Codes prevent 1960-style hell holes from being approved?). A more detailed discussion to each point follows.


Failings of 1960s flats

A modern urban design response to these failings

R-Codes (version 2)

Win or Fail

Height that is out of scale with its surroundings

Limited, human-scale heights (with provision for height where appropriate)

Win

Large street setbacks, lending to an “isolation” of dwellings to the street

Small, human-scale setbacks that encourages interaction with the street

Fail

Blank walls facing streets

Windows and balconies facing the street

Win

Single entrance to buildings, such that ground-floor dwellings have no interaction with the street

Ground-floor dwellings having entrances to the street

Fail

Gaps in building frontage

Contiguous building frontage

Fail

Side setback rules, creating unused open space

Buildings having a nil-side setback unless it serves a purpose

Fail

Communal open space with poor landscaping, unused by residents

Open space only provided where it serves a purpose, used by residents

Fail

Parking for residents visible from street

Parking is hidden at the rear, visitors park on street in front of building

Fail


Height


As one of the most attacked design elements of the 1960s buildings-of-fail, it is appropriate that the height of buildings is addressed in the R-Codes (version 2). The 3-4 storey heights proposed in the bulk of the urban density range (i.e. R50 - R100) promotes the development of buildings that are responsive to their environments at a human scale, whilst still allowing for buildings that will provide for increased populations where they are needed in this state’s existing urban areas where there is the well-developed and often underutilised community infrastructure. I note that local governments have the option of adopting R-AC codes where higher development is acceptable.


Street setbacks


A number of my comments will address buildings in their setting; the first of which will consider street setbacks.


A journey through Perth’s middle suburbs will reveal multiple dwellings of various designs, all of which will share a common failing: large street setbacks. These setbacks are almost always treated in the same way – communal lawn or garden. It’s not rare to see a solid fence erected on the required setback distance, either.


The problem is the general “feel” of the development this document intends to provide. Four metre street setbacks may be appropriate for a single dwelling in a garden setting, but multiple dwellings provide for an urban, not suburban, style of living. Front gardens of a single house can be tended to by the occupant; in an apartment building it will almost always be the responsibility of the strata manager to maintain gardens. It’s not the garden itself that is the problem, but the reason for it.


Experience has taught us that the vision of a block of flats in a garden setting does not create a better environment for residents; it is far better for residents to have an intimate, more personal connection with the public space they look out onto – the street. The street, by the way, will in most circumstances have a landscaped verge planted with street trees if the proposed amendment to Liveable Neighbourhoods’ verge widths is adopted.


The front setback area is also a waste of space. Deleting the setback enables the rear of the property to be increased in width by up to 4 metres and therefore more effectively used, for either carparking or communal open space whatever the case may be. Finally, it ensures that the front setback is not used as a regulated watering space. Water should be used for areas with a purpose, not for a regulated “garden setting”.


A human-scale setback of between 0-2m should be encouraged. As such, it is recommended that the front setback requirement be deleted from the R-Codes for all urban densities (i.e. R30 and above); with this applying equally for single houses and grouped dwellings.


Developers may of course choose to include a small front setback – 2m is common in many cities elsewhere around the world. This choice should be left to the developer.


Balcony setbacks


Still on the topic of front setbacks, the requirement of Acceptable Development provision 6b1.3 A3.4 relating to minimum setbacks for balconies does not seem to serve any purpose. Balconies are as a general rule open particularly if the balcony is an incursion from the main building, so do not impact greatly on “bulk”. The R-Codes definition of ‘plot ratio’ excludes balconies open on at least two sides from the plot ratio area (or “bulk”) calculation.


Furthermore, there are some balconies in Perth that extend over streets, and there is no reason why this should not be acceptable so long as the encroachment over the street complies with the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 and any local law.


Blank walls facing streets


The surveillance of the street provisions of the R-Codes (variation 2) generally prevent blank walls to the street and are supported.


Ground floor interaction with the street


This picture shows standard 1960s multiple dwellings. They comply with all the requirements of the R-Codes (version 2): setbacks; height; plot ratio; surveillance of the street; etc. and etc., albeit with slightly undersized private open spaces.


Diana Apartments, Joondanna


Of course with a 0-2 metre front setback the building would provide a more human scale to the street, but there is still something amiss with the ground floor dwellings. The (ground-balcony? verandah? front yard?) has no connection to the street; it is intended to be the only private open space provided to the residents, and visitors are expected to enter from the rear. And yet the front setback space is wasted?


The solution is a simple two-pronged approach. First, require all ground-floor multiple dwellings to have a separate entry from the street to the front door of the dwelling. Second, where there is a setback to the street the front setback area in front of the building is to be given up as private open space for the use of the ground-floor dwelling. With these two improvements there will be much improved interaction with the street and less wasted space. It also gives ground floor residents a sense of pride in the area in front of their dwelling, allowing personalisation of the front space and, leading to a much more interesting streetscape than the standard communal landscaping shown in the image above.


As private open space in front setback areas are visible from the street (for good reason), Acceptable Development provision 6b4.1 A1 (visual privacy) should exempt balconies facing the street from overlooking requirements to ground-floor private open space.


Basement carparks can often lead to ground floors on podiums, and this can provide a disconnect between the development and the street. This is particularly the case where ramps are provided as for a 1m rise a ramp exceeding 14m in length is required. Acceptable Development provision 6b2.1 A1.3 which restricts such structures to a maximum height of 1m is supported, but it is suggested a smaller height of 0.5m from the adjoining footpath is adopted to reduce the “podium” effect.


Building frontage


An important, and often overlooked, consideration when designing any building for any purpose is a clear distinction of public/private space. By this I mean by giving buildings a language that states to everyone; “this is yours and that’s mine.” The erection of “private property,” “staff only”, and other similar signs points to the failure of a building to speak the language of space definition.


It is also important to ensure that private spaces are actually private. Simply labelling “resident’s recreation area” on a plan will not make it so, particularly if there is no privacy or security issues it will not be used.


Finally, from a pedestrian point of view the sense of place that person will feel when walking down a street is important if that street is to feel “walkable.” Gaps in buildings will only increase a sense of isolation, a person is less likely to walk along such a street.


One of the aims of (variation 2) should therefore be the provision of a contiguous street frontage, except where a gap is required for a driveway, easement or protection of an on- site feature (like trees).


Side setbacks


Like front setbacks, there are many examples of side setbacks that serve no purpose, with weed-infested side setback areas or harsh paved areas. I was interested to see how (variation 2) dealt with side setbacks.


Unfortunately, the layout of the R-Codes did not make this task easy. The setbacks for walls built to a boundary are set out in table 1b, but boundary setbacks are in table 2b. The two tables do not talk to each other, so a knowledge of the R-Codes is required to interpret what the setbacks are. To complicate matters even further, the two tables use different height thresholds to determine when the next setback applies; for example, a threshold of 6m average/7m maximum applies under table 1b, but 6.5m is used in table 2b.


The R-Codes (variation 2) also contains the single house/grouped dwelling provision that requires boundary walls to one side boundary only, without specifying which one. The reason is unclear. What if neighbours either side of you both build to your common boundary, perfectly in accordance with the R-Codes? Do you consult with neighbours if a developer intends to build to two boundaries based on possible amenity impact, even though either one of the neighbours could have had a boundary wall built to their boundary anyway? The situation is ridiculous and many local governments have now adopted planning policies allowing boundary walls to two side or rear boundaries. Why (variation 2) intends to keep this strange provision is unclear, and it is recommended that buildings to two side boundaries be allowed as of right.


Back to tables 1b and 2b. A simple one-stop shop for boundary setbacks should be provided, in one table or the other, and it should give preference to buildings on boundaries. Averaging for wall heights should also be deleted. Such a table may look like this:

Table 2b Boundary Setbacks

Wall height (m)

Setback from boundary for wall with no major openings (m)

Setback from boundary for wall with major openings, measured 2m either side of opening (m)

3.5 or less

0

1.5

3.51 to 6.5

0 (R80 and above)

2.0 (R30 to R60)

4.0

6.51 to 9.0

0 (R-AC3 and R-AC4)

2.5 (R30 to R-AC2)

5.5

9.01 to 15.0

0 (R-AC4)

2.5 (R30 to R-AC3)

6.0

15.01 to 21.00

4.5

9

21.01 and above

6

12

Notes:

a setbacks do not apply to eaves and sun shading devices.

b setback requirements in table 2b do not supersede any controls which are defined in local planning schemes, local planning policies or adopted structure plan provisions.


It’s an approximation but you get the general idea. If contiguous street-front buildings are supported then Acceptable Development provision 6b1.4 A4.4 which sets out the maximum length of a boundary wall could be deleted on the basis that the wall is likely to be limited by the provisions anyway.


Site cover


For densities between R30 and R60, a maximum site coverage of 50% is specified. Table 2b suggests that there is no open space requirement for R80 and above. Open space around multiple dwellings is notorious for being underused, and often little more than grass and carparking. If the emphasis is on built form and useability of space (as I have been arguing so far), then mandating maximum site coverage would achieve little aim rather than preserving the “garden setting” of the Welwyn’s garden city. Furthermore, site cover is already mandated by the maximum plot ratio areas, and a single-storey dwelling built at the maximum plot ratio area would come close to complying with the maximum site cover anyway, a two-storey development can only comply. The provision (6b1.5) is not required and should be deleted.


Car parking


I am not critiquing the calculation of the required carparking (and the reduction in the ratio required for sites close to train stations is commendable), but the proposed R-Code (variation 2) provisions do not seem to control the location of the residents’ carparking bays. As mentioned above, buildings should have a contiguous street frontage to help define public/private space, and the provision of carparking should be no exception. Carparking should be hidden from the street, either at the rear or in a basement level, where it is not visible from the street but in the private realm. To this end Acceptable Development provision 6b2.4 A4 should be expanded to provide for this.


Visitor parking, on the other hand, is best situated on-street in front of the development. Visitor parking at the rear is difficult for visitors to find, and in the front setback area detracts from the streetscape by interrupting the built form. On-street parking should be provided to the satisfaction of the local government, and only where street design does not cater for parking should there be visitor parking in the front setback area.


This concludes my analysis on the failings of the R-Codes (variation2) to prevent the flats of fail common in the 1960s, and recommendations to address these failings. I have also stumbled across a number of more minor errors in the R-Codes (variation 2) which are set out below.


Single bedroom dwellings


Although I realise that the purpose of the review of the R-Codes is not to vary the provisions of section 6a relating to single and grouped dwellings, I feel that recent discussions between the Departments of Planning and Housing relating to using ancillary accommodation for affordable housing should be included in this review. To this end, the R-Codes allow for single bedroom dwellings (i.e. ancillary accommodation not limited to family) to be erected on land where the minimum site area normally required may be reduced by up to one third. To give an idea, the minimum average site area required for a house on land coded R20 (the most common residential density in suburbia) is 500m². This means a single bedroom dwelling must have a minimum average site area of 367m², despite the floor area being limited to 60m²: i.e. 16% site coverage or 84% open space!


A house on an R20 property must have a site area of 867m² before a single bedroom dwelling may be approved, at 1,000m² a second normal-sized dwelling may be built. A simple solution is to allow single bedroom dwellings cognisant with the maximum floor area, so a minimum site area of say 120m² is required regardless of the coding. Provisions could be made to restrict the number of single bedroom dwellings on low-density lots.


With this rule, houses on an R20 property need to have a lot area of 620m² to allow for a single bedroom dwelling, on 867m² three single bedroom dwellings could be approved! This would certainly help alleviate the shortage of affordable housing and should be included in the R-Codes (variation 2).


Table 2a i and ii


The two tables for 2a both erroneously apply to ‘walls with no major openings’.


Bicycle parking


The requirement for bicycle parking to be provided is supported, given only five or so local governments have planning requirements for bicycle parking. However, Australian Standard AS2890.3 should be referenced to require an acceptable design of devices for parking bicycles.


Retaining walls


It is surprising to see Acceptable Development provision 6b3.7 A7.5 in (variation 2) given it suggests retaining walls should be setback from common boundaries. Such a requirement results in wasted and unused space suitable only for weeds. Maintaining visual privacy when the common boundary fence is sunken is much more difficult. Why R-Codes, why?


Use of square metres


“Square metres” are referenced in no less than 3 different ways in the R-Codes (variation 2), including “sq m” (provision 2.3, 6a1.2 A2, 6a1.3 A3, etc), “m2” (table 1a) and “m²” (provision 6b3.1 A1). “sq m” is just lazy, and “m2” is, I think, the name of motorways in the UK and Sydney. Both forms would be used by those who failed discrete maths in high school. The correct term “m²” should be used consistently. Hold down “Alt” on your keyboard and type “0 1 7 8” on the number pad. Let go of “Alt”, e voilà, a “²”.


Conclusion


The changes to the R-Codes to insert new provisions relating to multiple dwellings is overdue and welcome. The general intent of the R-Codes (variation 2) is good; even better the method of calculating site area requirements which supports the development of smaller, more affordable housing.


When viewed against the poor design elements that haunted 1960s flats of fail, the proposed R-Codes (variation 2) do not seem to prevent their recurrence nor put into place design requirements that are consistent with current planning principles. The recommendations included in my submission above that relate to street and balcony setbacks, street interaction, building frontage, side setbacks, site cover and design of carparking spaces, if implemented, would provide for multiple dwellings that interact with the street in a beneficial manner for all.


My recommendation for single bedroom dwellings should also be given serious concern, particularly given the recent investigations into providing for ancillary accommodation to be used for affordable accommodation by the Departments of Planning and Housing.