Borrowed Places

Footpaths and desire lines

2011-09-18T13:30:00.001+08:00

I always find it amazing that as planners and urban designers we are often responsible for the growth and management of places that house thousands or tens-of-thousands of people, and yet the issues which cause us the most grief are the detailed design issues - issues which shouldn't be issues where competing interests are seen as more important than common sense. One which has irked me for a while is footpaths, and the way they are designed in Perth's surburbia. Here's an example:

Note what happens when footpaths meet other streets - they bend away. Here's a perfect example, made even worse when you realise that the western side of the street is linear parkland:

Compare this to the way footpaths were dealt with in the 1950s and 1960s:

Joondanna

What would possess today's designers (the consulting engineers and the local government engineers who sign off on the designs) to configure their footpaths like obstacle courses? Certainly not Liveable Neighbourhoods, Western Australia's policy on subdivsion. Of the 18 or so provisions relating to footpaths and intersections, only one considers both; it says:

"On wider streets, pavements should be narrowed by kerb extensions at intersections to keep pedestrian crossing distances to a minimum and control turning vehicle speeds, while allowing for safe passage by cyclists."

This provision is almost redundant, given new streets are designed for minimal carriageway widths. And it certainly doesn't explain the footpath deviations. So why are the footpaths deviated? The answer lies with the engineers who design these subdivisions, and their perceptions of safety. Some answers I have been able to obtain include:

as pedestrian crossing distances are minimised by placing the crossing point outside of the intersection, crossing is safer because of the lesser distance to cross,
drivers approaching the intersection can see pedestrians clearer if they are not in the intersection, and
(my favourite) the rear sweep of trucks turning the corner will RUN OVER AND KILL pedestrians waiting to cross at the intersection!

There are no guidelines or standards that support the engineers' perspective, but rather their training which supports minimising vehicle v pedestrian conflicts. Their solutions do not take into account how these detours affect pedestrians. Planners will tell you that such designs discourage people from making trips by foot, and able-bodied people will ignore the detour and cross in a straight line. It is also inconsistent with design guidelines for crime prevention, which encourage pedestrian routes with clear sightlines (not possible if the footpath deviates up every side street).

As neither the planning requirements nor engineering standards and guidelines address the matter, discussions can only happen at the ideology level, and when neither party can present a strong enough argument to sway the other party, the party with the approval powers wins out. In Perth, this is the local government engineer who approves the subdivisional works.

It does not have to be like this. The Scottish Government's Designing Streets requires designers to take into account pedestrian desire lines:

I think its about time that Western Australia pays attention to common sense design and puts an end to designs that punish pedestrians.

Sabbatical

2011-09-18T09:15:00.000+08:00

After being caught up in life and other things for a while now, I've just started to get back into urban design. Has anyone else noticed that most planning blogs are based in North America? There's a few good ones like Old Urbanist and A Town Square, and strangely enough quite a few sites about railroads! But not many about Perth, who's input is limited to the satirical The Worst of Perth and an architecture blog. I think it's time to revisit urban design and planning in Perth!

Part of this is motivated by the state government's review of the Residential Design Codes, which amount to status quo with few useful improvements and retention of the poorly worded provisions. That, on top of the state government's current instructions to subdivide at all costs, means that despite all the rhetoric Perth will not be changing much in the short term.

Time permitting, I will hopefully be able to write about pointless front setbacks, narrow streets, density, trams, porches, apartments, and any other topic that crosses my mind.

But not railroads.

Is Tokyo a slum?

2011-01-03T13:29:00.001+08:00

slum /slŭm/ n. A heavily populated area characterised by substandard housing and squalor.

By definition, Tokyo is heavily populated. It does not, however, have substandard housing or squalor. Japan's economy has ensured that its residents have a high standard of living. For these reasons, no one in their right mind would call Tokyo a slum city.

However, Tokyo has been compared to another place that does have the 'slum' label often associated with it. Dharavi is a district of Mumbai which according to Wikipedia is the one of the largest slums in the world, and often features in popular culture such as the film Slumdog Millionaire. The planning firm Ubanology, who has one of its offices located in Dharavi, has investigated similarities between the urban forms of Dharavi and Tokyo, and prepared for Dharavi what it calls the "Tokyo model". Urbanology argues that until the 1960s, much of the housing in Tokyo was basic, built to satisfy the need for housing following the large-scale destruction of Tokyo in 1945. Of course the government was focusing on meeting residents' basic needs, and so little attention was paid to the overall structure of the neighbourhoods.

In this respect, Dharavi is very similar. The government of Dharavi and Mumbai struggles to meet basic health requirements, let alone dictate the urban form of Dharavi. And so Dharavi, like Tokyo before it, has grown quite organically.

This is probably best illustrated by the following pictures:

These images, taken from Dharavi.org, are photomontages, taken from typical cityscapes. Tokyo is on the left, and Dharavi on the right. They perfectly illustrate the similarities between the urban forms of these two cities.

Urbanology argue that the Tokyo model explains the urban form over much of Asia; and, furthermore, that it is an urban typology worthy of implementation in its own right, as opposed to the western high-rise and car-centric typologies which are often inappropriately imposed over these cities.

Looking at urban development in Asia in this manner, it also calls into question exactly what a 'slum' is. And in this respect, rather than viewing areas as 'slums', is it more appropriate to consider such areas as 'transitionary' areas, looking for government to provide basic services knowing that in the future the housing found in these areas will be improved as the local economies improve? Surely this is a much better solution than viewing 'slums' as an eyesore and bringing in the bulldozers.

Is Tokyo ugly?

2011-01-02T13:06:00.000+08:00

By circumstance, I have found myself in Tokyo for a two month period. What surprised me most about Tokyo is that the city is generally built upon a network of small streets, laneways and footways. Most of the streets are wide enough only to allow cars to travel in one direction, which drive at speeds low enough to avoid power poles, cyclists and pedestrians, abundant on every street.

Tokyo is also a dense city, and small restaurants and shops of every description can be found along some of Tokyo's back streets. Apartment building are scattered throughout the urban framework. The single-use districts so common in post-war districts of Australian (and American) cities are much less prevalent in Tokyo.

All of this makes Tokyo a fun, liveable city, due to its walkable streets and activity on every corner, and it can certainly be compared to some of the great cities in the post-war world such as London and Paris.

Tokyo does, however, have an unfortunate reputation: it is known as an ugly city. See, for example, this forum. To understand why, it helps to understand its background. Today's agglomeration of over 35 million people (including 13 million in Tokyo prefecture) begun from a base of close to 1.4 million people in 1889, and grew rapidly. By 1935, the population had grown to 6.36 million, comparable to the populations of London and New York. The population growth is even more amazing considering the significant damage done to the city in the 1923 (the Great Kanto earthquake) and 1945 (American bombing of the city).

Development controls over the city were basic (compared to planning controls implemented in Australia and America) and comprise an urban growth boundary and plot ratio limits. The government didn't otherwise interfere in how the city was to be rebuilt, after all one of the key priorities was to rebuild the city. The structure of the city was largely unchanged, with the main changes being the construction of a few main roads. The buildings constructed largely did not conform to any particular architectural style, and they all differed in height, width, setback, materials, colours, etc. The lack of architectural uniformity (such as that found in parts of London and Paris) is perhaps one of the reasons why Tokyo is known as an 'ugly' city.

There is more to the story that just architecture. In the late 1950s, Tokyo began construction of an elevated expressway system, being constructed mainly over existing highways and waterways, and here it is useful using London as an example. Charing Cross was once the location from where all distances in England were measured. This symbolic location was beautified over the 20th Century by the erection of a statue, and later the development of the adjoining Trafalgar Square, reflecting the importance of the Cross. In Tokyo, Nihombashi (literally 'Japan bridge') performed the same role as the location where all distances in Japan were measured; the bridge was improved in 1911. Visitors to Nihombashi today are greeted by an expressway just meters above the bridge (in fact the light poles in the centre of the bridge go up in between the expressway). There have been talks about undergrounding this section of expressway for hundreds of billions of yen.

I am currently staying in Hasunuma, a district in Itabashi City in Tokyo's northwest. Hasunuma is fortunate in some respect: One subway stop to the south and visitors are greeted by one of Tokyo's tall, shadow-casting two-storey expressways; two stops to the north and the subway turns into an elevated railway, carving its way through rows and rows of flats, often just metres from the buildings. Hasunuma has largely retained its pre-war street network. Is it beautiful? It maintains the mis-match of architectural styles like elsewhere in Tokyo, with limited open space outside of sporting grounds. It would be a stretch to argue that Hasunuma is beautiful. But it certainly is liveable, and no doubt the residents of Hasunuma appreciate that.

Perth's small bars

2010-04-15T15:45:00.006+08:00

Its been a couple of years - May 2007 to be precise - since small bars were introduced to Perth, and despite a slow uptake there is now a number of decent small bars up and running. Perth’s small bars, by definition, are limited to a maximum of 120 people and the sale of packaged liquor is not allowed.

The people at the WA liquor licensing like small bars - they have a high staff/patron ratio and are well managed, which means they do not cause the kind of alcohol-related harm to the community as a high concentration of taverns, nightclubs and bottle shops does (they have studied this, and apparently the density of liquor outlets in any one area has a positive correlation to alcohol-related harm in that area).

Its easy to see why people (other than liquor licensing officials) also like small bars - they are generally intimate and individualised, and finding a favourite bar can feel like a discovery - a local spot with personalised service and smiles. No lining up in rain behind bulky bouncers, line at the bar, no intense electro music (or lame 80s and 90s “popular” dance tunes), and less chance of getting glassed.

Perth’s small bars sit somewhere in between what you could expect to find in Melbourne or Sydney. Melbourne deregulated its liquor licensing a few years ago, which lead to not just a big increase in small bars but an increase in larger drinking holes and bottle shops, which has had a related increase in alcohol-related harm across the City. Melbourne is now trying to impose restrictions on these places which seems to have had the unintended consequence of destroying live-music venues. Sydney on the other hand is only now introducing small bars, and to have a couple of drinks at the moment will usually mean having a substantial meal at a restaurant, or heading to the nearest large tavern.

Here’s some of my favourite small bars in Perth:

399 Bar

*photo ruthlessly ripped from 399’s Facebook page

Located in the heart of Perth’s unofficial Asian strip (William Street), 399 Bar is a long, narrow bar with booth seating along one side, and the tiniest of courtyards out the back. 399 does not have a cocktail list, but will gladly make up any drink you can think of any many more you can’t. Mulled wine features in winter, as does their hot chocolate. They also do a mean coffee, which comes highly-recommended by the visionary Nat.

Ezra Pound

*www.relativemagazine.com launched their apparel at Ezra Pound last year. This is their photo.

To get to Ezra Pound you’ll need to traverse a narrow, sometimes smelly lane in Northbridge, or cross the potholed carpark from the train line (but don’t park there as it is ridiculously expensive). Once inside, Ezra Pound is a delight; abstract lighting and exposed brick walls are the theme. Beers come in brown paper bags. Outside is plenty of seating, and you can order pizzas from next door and enjoy them with your drinks. Ezra Pound deserves plenty of respekt.

1907

*i don't know what this but it features on 1907's website. It looks interesting

If it’s cocktails you’re after look no further than 1907. Hidden away in a basement on little-known Queen Street, 1907 exudes über-coolness but will happily serve you exquisite drinks. The pink bar is a winner.

Clarence's

Restaurant in front, bar out back is how Clarences rolls. It has an easy-to-miss façade on the heart of Mount Lawley’s Beaufort Street strip, but those who find it will be pleasantly surprised with the rear courtyard which is perfects for downing an icey-cold cider. All highs no lows here.

Defectors

*thanks to the defectors website

Defector is the closest thing Perth has to a roof-top bar. (Where is our roof-top bar Perth? We have great weather for it, bring it!). It sits high above The Flying Scotsman, one of Mount Lawley’s popular drinking holes. Old-school charm and great views over Perth city is what Defector brings to the table, as well as an overall great place to get a drink and sit in a dark cosy corner (or sitting on the balcony watching the peeps mill around on the street below).

Andaluz and Helvetica

Windswept St Georges Terrace is at the centre of Perth’s business-orientated area, but luckily there is some shelter to be had from the wind by heading down narrow Howard Street. Andaluz is a super-popular tapas bar with a tiny entrance. It’s fancy and its expensive, but is great if you can get in early and score a table. Its next-door neighbour Helvetica is a great alternative - it features some of Yok’s work. The only problem is that there are not more of these small bars in the centre of Perth - these ones fill up very quickly!

The Cabin

Not content with populating Perth’s inner domains, small bars are slowly infiltrating the suburbs. The Cabin looks out from the upper floor of a shop on Mount Hawthorn’s main street, and has been decorated just like your ski cabin at home with deer heads and natural wooden tables. The balcony gives another nice view over Perth; good spot for a first date.

X-Wray

Opposite the Luna SX Cinemas in Fremantle, X-Wray feels like its been transported from Kuta, Bali (minus the Cold Chisel). Which is strange as there’s nothing tropical about Freo’s climate.

Rockingham Wine Bar

Perth’s forgotten city makes an attempt to remind everyone that they are here too. The Wine Bar is a tiny establishment that has been around before the liquor licensing reforms were put into place and does a small bar with simple gusto. Overlooking Rockingham Beach there seems to be no better place to relax with a glass of red, except maybe with a glass of sangria at the Rústico Tapas Bar that has opened up next door.

I can only look forward to seeing more intimate small bars set up in the future - bring it!

East Perth

2010-01-23T12:56:00.004+08:00

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.

Score your neighbourhood for walkability

2010-01-17T17:20:00.000+08:00

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

2010-01-17T08:27:00.000+08:00

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.

Muggles' Cities

2009-07-20T16:52:00.000+08:00

Diagon Alley

Noticed how London is depicted in the Harry Potter films? No cars! (except for the flying car that appeared in the second film) The latest film, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is no exception.

The film starts with Harry in a cafe on a station platform, before being transported to a small village square, complete with paved roads and small square-shaped fountain in an irregularly-shaped village square (the kind that no engineer in his/her right mind would even consider allowing today). Also featuring is the pedestrian bridge across the Thames, the narrow winding alleys and stairs of Diagon Alley and of course the train that takes the students to Hogwarts.

It's good to see that the muggles of London are depicted living in pedestrian-friendly cities, and not one of Thom Yorke's suburbanites. Now we only need the Harry Potter generation to demand the kind of places depicted in the series.

The Organic City - Is the Market Enough?

2009-06-07T17:25:00.000+08:00

Out of the hundred-or-so pictures my partner and i took of our Bali holiday, this is the only one that shows a street - the rest show us in the hotel swimming pool, us dining at restaurants, us with monkeys in Monkey Forest, etc. It shows a typical street in Legian, Bali, and the back of my head.

The towns and cities of Indonesia and many other south-east Asian countries have been developed organically; there is little input from the government over the subdivision, development or land use. It is exactly the type of environment urban planners encourage, the city that changes according to the needs of its residents, a land-efficient city (land and buildings are free to change use and will do so based on the economic models of rent), a vibrant city with a mix of uses. It is the solution to the dysfunction of the use-segregated cities built across the western world in the post-war period.

The main tourist area of Kuta/Legian was in the 1930s an agricultural area producing rice or other crops for the Dutch colonists, but as the area became known for tourism the fields were developed. The original movement system was retained, and this consisted of rural roads with ditches on each side, and within the blocks narrow alleys provided access to each field. Usually the only improvement to the movement network was the covering of the ditches so that tourists could get access to the shopfronts.

Walking in Kuta/Legian is a bitch - the footpaths are ridiculously narrow (usually less than a metre), are often about 30 centimetres above the road, and are cut across continuously by crossovers. And motorbikes and cars are often parked on the path, not worrying about the shop vendor's displays being in the way. That each building has a different floor level doesn't help either.

It wasn't long before i made an observation - the locals did not walk anywhere, they all rode motorbikes or cars. And neither did they live locally - many of the shop owners and hotel staff we talked to lived half an hour ride away or more, but were willing to make the journey because of the tourist money they could make.

Nor were there any strong "nodes" or focus points that are found i most cities. And large street-blocks make movement within Kuta and Legian difficult, though alleys provide some possibilities for shortcuts for those who know the area well. Basically, the movement network only encourages motorised travel above other modes, and the pedestrian is severely punished.

In our cities, we must loosen the land use restrictions that were put into place post-war. But we need to retain control of the movement networks arising from the subdivision of fringe areas to ensure quality of public spaces. Only this way will our cities function properly.

Public Spaces and Public Life

2009-05-30T13:17:00.000+08:00

Perth recently commissioned Danish architect and urban designer Jan Gehl to revisit his 1994 study into Perth's public spaces & public life. Perth was the first Australian city to have such a study done, and most of Australia's other cities have followed.

Gehl's mantra is that great public spaces make a great City, something that has been neglected by city planners since the Athens Charter of 1933. He claims that public spaces have been considered as an afterthought - the leftover spaces between buildings. Rather, cities should be designed by first contemplating the public spaces, and the buildings follow.

In the 15 years since the 1994 study, Perth instigated some but not all of the study's recommendations - the result has been the improvement of some of Perth's spaces including extensions to the pedestrian network, but there has been shortcomings. In particular, Perth's central area is still devoid of life after business hours, due to the uses continuing to be segregated. There are still office, retail and cultural districts that work during the day, but during night become very unsafe.

Melbourne's central area in the mid-1990s was similar to Perth's at the time - mono-use districts with no life after hours. Gehl undertook a study of Melbourne's public spaces not long after Perth's study was undertaken. The difference between Perth and Melbourne, according to Gehl, was that all of the recommendations were actioned. Melbourne is now renowned as one of the most cosmopolitan (i.e. active and full of life at all hours) cities of the world.

Cities across the world have been implementing improvements to public spaces. Once of the most recent experiment has been to North America's most urbanised city, New York, where Broadway, one of the major thoroughfares that runs through Times Square, has been closed to vehicular traffic for the year. The City claims that vehicular traffic through the area will be improved because Broadway, which cuts diagonally across the City's grid street layout, causes delays at intersections. Cab and delivery drivers are cautious and car owners worry about the reduction in parking, but the response seems positive. If Perth truly wants to become a liveable city, it needs to up its game.

My favourite comment by James Robertson (in the Broadway blog) notes that neighbourhoods have been cut up by interstate highways in the 1950s and 60s. Comparing the pedestrianisation of a street and the construction of a freeway, i know which one i prefer!

Infill development improving our neighbourhoods

2009-05-09T21:19:00.000+08:00

Having moved from Mount Lawley - a traditional neighbourhood with everything anyone could need within a 1 minute walk - to the much more suburban Joondanna, my partner and i have a great appreciation of what a diverse, rich and robust neighbourhood can offer. A liquor store and pharmacy are the only things available within a five minute walk.

The above image is a simple 3D model of the 1960s units where we live. There are 11 identical units, ours is at the front on the right. I haven't drawn doors, windows, etc, but the walls fronting the street are completely blank - there are no openings whatsoever, and the units open onto the internal driveway. The 8 metre front setback is maintained by the strata company, who recently spent its entire budget on mulch and new plants for the front setback area.

The problem is that the development offers nothing to the street, in that there is no interaction between the street and the residents, except for when the residents leave (usually in their cars). In the spirit of examining our own neighbourhoods for opportunities, i have looked at the wasted front setback area in more detail, and looked at using the 160m² areas either side of the driveway.

This shows two single bedroom dwellings built in front of the existing units, built up to the front boundary to make best use of the site. A street verandah provides shelter to people walking along the footpath. The carports and courtyards are positioned so that the new dwellings have minimal impact on the existing units (and the owners could make a tidy profit from selling the new dwellings). And a 3.2m high ceiling provides flexibility for the future conversion of part or whole of the dwellings into other uses, once zoning laws are relaxed.

Best of all, the development is completely compliant with the requirements of the local Codes with the exception of front setback requirements. Communities should be lobbying for front setback requirements to be relaxed to allow for this type of infill in their suburbs.

I will look at other ways infill development could be undertaken in your streets in upcoming posts - with enough infill development increased local populations will better the viability of businesses in our suburbs.

An engineer's city - landscape vandalism

2009-04-27T20:38:00.000+08:00

Moonscape - the Marmion Avenue extension

photo courtesy of Sun City News

This long weekend we holidayed in Yanchep, 45 minutes north of Perth. To get there is a lesson in the history of planning for suburbs, starting with the 1960s suburbs - roads built through land on which housing is progressively built where the outcome is a mixture of housing types. Next is the 1980s suburbia made of wide curvilinear roads, lined with back fences. We got lost at one point, and had to double-back a few times until we discovered the way out (hint - these road names end in "Entrance" or something similar, but look like all the other roads). Next is the suburbs of the 1990s and early 2000s that are much like the 1980s except that retaining walls make a big appearance everywhere. Here, slopes not visible to the naked eye are severely retained, and combined with sand dunes streets become walled enclosures. Apparently building companies will not build unless the lot is flat.

On the urban fringe main streets are beginning to appear, before a 10km undeveloped coastal landscape separates suburbia from our holiday destination. Marmion Avenue was recently extended across this undeveloped land to the next town.

It is on this newly constructed road that we can see the true reign of the engineer. What would otherwise be a simple road becomes a technical feat. To make the two-lane road, a wide swathe of land is cleared - the road itself is probably 10-12m wide - probably an 80m wide reservation is cleared and flattened. Where sand dunes are encountered, precisely-engineered slopes are constructed either side of the road and the slopes fenced off (there is no other fencing anywhere along the road). Three roundabouts are constructed - two of which have no road connections and the third being a little-used road to the coast. Finally,despite being a 10km long stretch of road with no hazards or side roads, an 80km/h speed limit is maintained, even though the road is so over-engineered that any driver would have no problems travelling at 110km/h (if not for the roundabouts to nowhere).

The landscape around the road is scenic - rolling sand dunes are all that can be seen, there is no other development - other than the massive scar made by the road's construction. There is no other way of looking at this other than the vandalism of a pristine landscape for engineering's sake. Sure the land may be set aside for suburban expansion, but that is no reason to destroy the land in the meantime.

What makes me angry is that the road is obviously designed for development that may not catch up to it for 10-20 years. It is the wrong way of going about things - the road should have been built to rural standards using only the land required for the road - when development happens the road can be upgraded. This line of thought is more consistent with planning to extend networks are required, rather than just assuming that development will continue indefinitely and making provision for it.

The local government i work for is looking at constructing a new entry road into its central area. Instead of acquiring the full 80m wide road reserve, it is instead asking for a 40m wide reserve. If the remaining land is eventually required, it can take the rest at a later stage. If only this thought was applied to Marmion Avenue.

Urban Patterns - Beyoglu, Istanbul

2009-04-23T21:44:00.000+08:00

Urban Patterns : Beyoglu, Istanbul

Jessica Judd 2008

Vegetable Pesto Tartlets

2009-04-23T21:00:00.000+08:00

Perth is just starting to get cold. The evenings are dark by the time i get home from work, and sitting in office/car means that the body stays cool. But my girfriend is out tonight, so i decide to walk to the local shopping centre, The Mezz, something i have not yet done. Google Earth suggests a 1.2km drive taking 4 minutes - i walk there in 10 minutes exactly.

The streets of Mount Hawthorn are based on a rectangular grid layout that is common to pre-war suburbs, with tree-lined streets and footpaths on both sides. It is, however, dark. If there were obstacles or holes they would be difficult to see. There is also little life on the streets. The only people i see are a couple of joggers, a family attempting to fix a broken car by torchlight, and a man harvesting the from lavender bushes in the verge garden outside the shopping centre.

It seems that density and flexibility of land uses would go a long way in improving the walkability of the suburb. Already with a strong main-street, tripling or quadruling the density would significantly increase the number of people in the area, and make the existing shopping strip much more viable. It would also encourage incidental businesses to crop up on local streets around the centre, making walking though the area much more interesting and safe, as well as providing a variety of destinations. Suburbs such as Mount Hawthorn could easily retrofit this kind of development. To achieve this, state government really needs to make a strong stance by encouraging the refurbishment of existing areas.

Back to my walk. Where before i left i had rugged up in an overcoat and cranked up the heater in the house, coming home i was overheating and had to strip layers off - walking sure is a great way to warm up on a cool evening.

For no particular reason, i thought i would share with you my dinner tonight (hey, after doing planning all day in the office, it's great to get away from it in the evening!) - vegetable pesto tartlets (thanks to the Women's Weekly "4 Fast Ingredients"). Cut a pastry sheet in half and fold over the edges, and spread over it sun-dried tomato pesto (if your local walkable supermaket doesn't sell this, tomato paste is an ok alternative). Drain and pat dry some antipasto char-grilled veges (i used capsicum, tomato and olives) and place on the tartlets, and spinkle with feta. Bake for 10 minutes in a hot oven, and top with some fresh basil leaves. At this point, i should mention that any urban dweller with a conscience should have a herb and vegetable garden, no matter how small it is. Looking after a garden is a very satisfying experience!

Networking our cities

2009-04-01T22:18:00.000+08:00

Recently Mathieu Helie suggested using networks as a new method of focusing urban development in the right locations - he suggested the following proscriptive standards:

"For private development: you may build on any available part of the network so long as you replace the part you used up by extending the network around your new block.
For community development: any time a part of the network becomes too complicated (for example it takes more than 4 steps to get out of a sector), extend the boundary of that part with a higher capacity road (a boulevard)."

Before we look into this, let us first consider the current planning system post 1940s, which is of course based on the zoning of land as a precursor to urban development. Perth is known for having a very successful regional scheme that covers the metropolitan region - it has been very successful in shaping Perth's urban development into corridors well serviced by transport networks and utilities. It has been so successful that Perth is now well known for having one of the lowest densities of any City, and for providing more roads per capita than any other City. The growth is coordinated with a broad-brush at the regional level.

At the district level, structure plans set up the more detailed framework within which development is to occur. Ultimately, development fills in the urban-zoned land to create a contiguous urban district. In the meantime, the half-developed areas look like this:

The result is a series of disconnected developments. There is no focus, the town centre is centred on a main street isolated from the remainder, with poor connectivity. It will be decades before the sections all connect, before an effective public transport system can be set up, and decades before the district attains the kind of population that supports intensification of central areas, and decades before local employment opportunities begin to take over from far-flung employment areas located at the ends of railways and freeways. Even then, it is unlikely that this form of ad hoc urbanisation will form the kind of diverse urban areas found in traditional suburbs.

Pre-1940s, limited access to motor vehicles meant urban development was necessarily constrained to existing transport routes. New development was undertaken in conjunction with extensions to tram networks, such that Cities were more or less developed along the same principles suggested by Mathieu.

Perth already has the framework in place to provide for growth of a network, with only surprisingly-minor tweaking of the existing system. The main changes needed are:

Get rid of the "Urban" zone. Instead, identify land suitable for urban development (i.e. excluding environmentally-significant areas, main agricultural areas, regional freight routes, and so on;

Create the rules that only allow subdivision and development where it connects to and extends an existing network (roads, public transport and utilities); and

Simplify local planning regulations to provide for greater flexibility for land uses, so that extended networks can develop a mix of uses organically.

The benefits of such a system include much greater efficiency of the provision of services, greater certainty for owners and developers, and the development of a flexible City network that has a greater capacity to respond to social and economic changes.

A failed "main street" development

2009-02-19T20:51:00.000+09:00

We have recently moved to a new suburb, where the closest shopping area is the Dog Swamp Shopping Centre. Despite its appealing name, the Shopping Centre features an unusual configuration of not one but two boxes, staring at each other across a carpark. The configuration does not do the shopping centre any favours, as each box is locked in competition with the other to attract customers.

Luckily, we are not far from the traditional shopping street of Mount Hawthorn. Excitedly, my girlfriend and i arrived to explore the main street - only to find that it was eerily quiet, like a sleepy country town. Despite being of a decent size, there was nowhere near the same number of people on the street in comparison to similar-sized main streets elsewhere. The main street itself couldn't be faulted, as it had all the usual suspects like cafés, a grocer, fashion retailers, a pub and bottle shop, post office and numerous salons all built up to the main street in a traditional manner.

It took me a week to discover The Mezz - a recently refurbished shopping centre right in the middle of the main street. Its refurbishment ticks all of the urban designer's boxes. It is built up to the main street, with shop frontage, generous pedestrian shelter, two-storey built form with articulation of the façade, and carparking hidden at the rear. It also features a new "main street" at the rear with more shop fronts on both sides, with gaps between the shops offering only fleeting glimpses of the carparking area. The reason it took me so long to find is this:

This picture shows the only entrance to the shopping centre from the main street. Can't find it? Hint: It's just to the right of the Dôme café. Inside, the entrance looks like this:

Pretty underwhelming; it looks like this street entrance has been put in as an afterthought, and probably to the detriment of the café.

Why does this shopping centre fail? Quite simply, it subtracts from the main street. By providing such a poor link between the shopping centre and the main street, it does not invite people to move between the two, but instead discourages it. Shopping centre users have no reason to go to the main street or vice versa. In essence, it has destroyed the symbiotic relationship that all shops in a shopping centre depend on, that shoppers will pass their shops and buy on impulse.

Neither is the new main street successful - it has no relationship to the real main street or even the side streets that it connects to. The design in inward looking and offers nothing to its surrounding environment. This is a view of the new "main street" from the side street:

No wonder we found the Mount Hawthorn main street unusually quiet - The Mezz is designed to operate in almost complete isolation to the main street it is attached to, much like the two halves of the Dog Swamp Shopping Centre. With this shopping centre versus main street dichotomy, both are likely to struggle to survive, given the lack of a relationship between the two parts. Town planners and urban designers when considering any development proposal should always ensure that the development adds to, and does not subtract from, its environment.

Places people would want to get married in

2009-02-12T21:36:00.000+09:00

Kate (Tina Fey) being rewarded with five minutes of uninterrupted eye contact with her boss Barry (Steve Martin) in Baby Mama

Recently my girlfriend and i were watching Baby Mama, starring Tina Fey. In the film her new-age boss, played by Steve Martin, has asked her to be in charge of designing the organic food store's new flagship store. Amongst other things such as public involvement at the earliest possible stage, one of the criterion given to her is to design a store that people will want to get married in.

Many local governments will often provide extensive design criteria covering aspects such as roof pitches, window sizes, colour palettes, setbacks, building height - the list can be extensive. However, often the outcome is the creation of buildings that are deemed to comply, the bare minimum to achieve the specific criteria, neighbourhoods lacking in innovative, interesting places.

What if we get rid of all of these prescriptive standards, and instead introduce a single proscriptive standard - "Will people want to to get married in it?" If yes, approve. If not, send it back and try again.

It can be applied to anything - think of your local neighbourhood.

- King Street in Perth's west end? Tick.

- The Rocks in Sydney? Tick.

- London, Paris, Rome, or any one of the towns and villages lining the Mediterranean? Tick.

- Most suburban shopping centres? Cross

- Service commercial strips? Cross.

This also has the advantage of being a lot easier to interpret that the standard planner-speak terms like "amenity" and "does not detract from the streetscape," to which to the average person may not have the same level of understanding.

The adoption of this standard would encourages architects and designers to design buildings of beauty, rather than buildings that comply with a certain set of rules, and no doubt communities will be able to provide valuable input on the developments happening in their neighbourhoods. And any thing that leads to the creation of beautiful places must be a good thing.

Taking the cars off the road

2009-02-08T11:48:00.000+09:00

Frematle's endangered High Street mall, photo courtesy of http://john.curtin.edu.au/fremantle/lawrence.html#six

Across Australia, business owners have been calling for pedestrian malls to be reopened to traffic - a slap across the faces of the planners who fought for the creation of these malls in the 1970s. After all, don't malls create a safe environment for shoppers to stroll at will, without the hassle of noisy and smoky cars, obstacles and greatly-reduced pavement widths?

Towns in question include Townsnville, Fremantle, Wooloongong, Darwin, and many others. At least six have already been reopened to traffic in Sydney. Opening malls to traffic has generally led to a reduction in crime and anti-social behaviour, and a decrease in the number of vacant shops. Of course, the lack of diversity of land uses in these mainly-retail malls contributed to a decrease in activity after hours, as well as the opening of suburban shopping centres as a major competition for these malls.

An interesting parallel is the market failure of San Diego's Uptown development, a new urbanist neighbourhood with pedestrian-friendly streets and carparking located out of sight at the rear of buildings, and mostly underground. Touted as a leading example of new urbanist design, the neighbourhood has seen a lot of businesses fail on its main street, including a yogurt shop, women's clothing store, coffeehouse, Italian restaurant, chicken rotisserie restaurant, local clothing designers' store, evening gown rental shop, and travel agency, all of which have gone out of business since the district opened.

The failure could be attributed by the district's willingness to cater for the car, by providing its ample parking underground, conveniently linked to the shops on the main street, but separated from the pedestrian environment.

All of this seems too familiar - where else have we witnessed attempts to separate car and pedestrian movements? This was one of the critical design elements of the Radburn new town, which influenced the design of many Australian suburbs in the 1960s. The practice of pedestrian open space links entirely separated from the road network was intended to provide safety - ironically it had the complete opposite effect. It didn't help that many Australian versions turned their backs to the open space, creating spaces almost entirely unsurveilled.

Only in areas where there is a high density and a diverse mix of uses can pedestrian-only environments flourish - even then cars and delivery vehicles should be incorporated - otherwise there will again be the risk of creating vehicle spaces that are unsafe, for all the same reasons.

Welcome to Borrowed Places

2009-02-08T11:20:00.000+09:00

Having grown frustrated at the lack of good Australia urban design blogs, i have created Borrowed Places to examine good and bad examples of planning in Australia and elsewhere, but particularly my home town of Perth.

The emphasis is the theory and practice behind good places, and how to successfully create them.