The Grattan Institute yesterday released its insightful report Social Cities. We’ve selected a few extracts and ask readers to contemplate what can be done and how well our councillors and planners are moving in this direction – if at all? The full report is available from: http://www.grattan.edu.au/publications/137_report_social_cities.pdf
“…quality of open space is just as important as the quantity. A small park that is well maintained and watered, with established trees to provide shade, vibrant flower gardens for visual pleasure, quality seating and creative playgrounds, will be used far more actively than a park that is far larger but less inviting. In fact without appropriate design, parks can be too big for comfort. In his pioneering work William H Whyte demonstrated that people prefer to congregate on the edges of public spaces (see Figure 18). So if seating and play equipment are stranded in the middle of large open areas they will not get much use, because people will feel exposed and vulnerable. This is particularly true when a park is bounded by busy roads, blank walls and fences or vacant and derelict land.
Some of the most successful parks are intimate mini-parks or ‘pocket parks’. Pocket parks are often created on irregular-shaped patches of land that are too small for building, or on vacant lots between other developments. Sometimes the developers of major projects are required to include pocket parks as part of their planning approval. In response to the sub-prime mortgage crisis, the City of Los Angeles is transforming foreclosed properties into pocket parks with the aim of adding amenity and raising the value of surrounding houses and neighbourhoods at the same time.
In the 1980s in the UK, Northamptonshire planner Alan Teulon pioneered the idea of pocket parks by involving local residents in identifying, creating and maintaining small, local parks. This evolved into the Doorstep Greens program that, for a small investment, has transformed more than 100 neglected public areas into popular green spaces. Strong public engagement and volunteering has helped to keep costs and vandalism down. The process of developing these pocket parks has brought local residents together and helped to foster social connection.(p.23)
Traffic
In his pioneering work on streets, Donald Appleyard showed that residents in a street with light traffic flow (2,000 vehicles per day) had three times more friends living in the street (and twice as many acquaintances) than residents on a street with heavy traffic flow (16,000 vehicles per day).
The heavily trafficked street had little or no sidewalk activity while on the street with light traffic, front steps were frequently used for sitting and chatting, and there was play and casual conversation on the pavement.
More recent studies confirm the impact that traffic has on the time people spend on the street. In New York, 44% of people who live on streets with heavy traffic say they respond by going out less often. This compares to only 7% of people who live in medium traffic areas, and 3% of people in light traffic areas. (p.36-7)
There are many ways to shift the role of streets from the car dominated default. The first and most obvious is to reduce speed limits in residential streets. In recent years the default speed limit in built-up areas in many Australian cities has been reduced from 60 to 50km/h. Road safety experts say Australia should follow the Swedish example and further reduce residential speed limits to 30km/h, a speed below which pedestrians have dramatically improved chances of surviving the impact of being hit by a car.
Perhaps counter-intuitively, a significant reduction in speed limits is predicted to have only a minor impact on average travel times (p.38)
March 27, 2012 at 11:18 PM
The Leader has finally realised that the Community Plan has been up for discussion. It’s only taken 3 months, but there’s finally this on today’s front page of the Caulfield Leader. We draw attention to the alleged comments of Mayor Hyams and his assertion that the C87 Amendment (significant character areas) will “protect” amenity in Glen Eira. Again, a wonderful distortion since C87 will only offer additional protection to around 1000 properties out of the 53,000 residences situated in the municipality. We also draw attention to his statement that Council WILL introduce this amendment. Funny, we thought that decisions can only be made at ordinary council meetings!
LOSING identity, gardens and appeal is what worries Glen Eira residents the most about the future of their neighbourhood.
In an online survey, residents revealed overdevelopment was the biggest issue they want their council to address over five years. Ratepayers — in a survey as part of the Glen Eira Council’s 2013-2017 community plan — said they were sick of watching period-style homes replaced with ‘‘ugly’’ multi-storey ‘‘boxes’’.
Residents overwhelmingly said Glen Eira was losing its identity, its vegetation and its appeal. The council has conducted 500 phone surveys, three focus groups and six community forums. Mayor Jamie Hyams said he was not surprised by the feedback.
‘‘It’s understandable that people want their neighbourhoods better protected, they want fewer cars parked on the roads and less traffic,’’ Cr Hyams said.
He said the council would introduce neighbourhood character overlays and transition zones to protect Glen Eira’s amenity.
Glen Eira Residents’ Association president Don Dunstan said the council needed a structure plan.
‘‘In the last 10 years, the population has gone up by 10,000 because of these extra developments,’’ Mr Dunstan said.
March 28, 2012 at 10:36 PM
Some online views on this story –
Milena Wiedrich writes:
Posted on 28 Mar 12 at 04:12pm
I certainly agree of the dilemna re: development in Glen Eira. I live in Carnegie which used to be very pleasant, but now seeing the devlopments growing of more and higher buildings which is quite condensed and ugly. It seems to never end.
louise sharp writes:
Posted on 28 Mar 12 at 01:33pm
sad that residents have been sold off by councils, to development companies . Once a beauttiful suburb has now become a money making excersise for developers. To move around and enjoy what makes the area a lovely place will become a stressfilled overpopulated area . You will never get back what has been distroyed. Council; once were people who protected communitys they represent, however are now the key to developers money making grab. I wonder if those who are in councils have no care about the area they represent. Councils should have responsiblitity to protect what makes a suburb great.
Frank writes:
Posted on 28 Mar 12 at 12:36pm
The Baillieu Governments planning scheme, Melbourne 2030 is responsible for this. High rise buildings crammed into suburbs without the infrastructure to cope. The result is congestion, which in turn increases pollution, a loss of open space for children and on it goes… Developers donations are dictating policy, not the people. We need a new political party that is not influenced by these donations.
James writes:
Posted on 27 Mar 12 at 01:20pm
This survey is hardly suprising considering community reaction to developments in the area. The 20 story building being approved at Caulfield racecourse being a prime example. With the Council elections approaching, we will all have the opportunity to cast judgement on the councilliors that bought us this monster of a building.
March 29, 2012 at 1:34 PM
I’d like to address one misconception. When Council voted to adopt C60, they were establishing a Priority Development Zone. As part of this, they removed the right of the public to object to developments in the Zone, so long as the developments were in accordance with the Incorporated Plan. That plan revealed a target height in some precincts of around 20 storeys. The developer is free to submit a proposal for something much taller, and likely get a Permit from either Council or VCAT. However the public would also get the restored right to scrutinize the proposal and object as part of the process. Council has misled the public by publishing a press release claiming they have imposed height limits. They haven’t.
March 28, 2012 at 12:25 AM
Cr Hyams was very non-committal and dismissive in his comments, “not surprised” but not supportive of residents views either.
This councillor seems to be all the way with development at all costs. He has bent over backward to make sure parkland was converted into carparking, fully knowing that Glen Eira has a open space crisis, being the lowest by far in all Victoria.
I would not vote for him ever, he runs as an independent councillors but wholly supports any scheme that the officers put up, whether good or bad. And that’s not being independent, that is being a servant to the bureaucracy
We need councillors that will be, or are independent of the bureaucracy, not apologist or servants to their excesses. We need councillors that understand that we are short of parkland and therefore parkland is more important than carparks, we have plenty of carparks everywhere these days.
Please VOTE for councillors that understand what is needed, and more to the point what residents what, because that can be totally different to what the bureaucracy thinks you want, or what they want to give you for their reasons.
Hyams does not seem to understand the difference, or for reasons of his own that have never been explained by him as to why he consistently chooses to side against residents and throw his lot in with the bureaucrats.
That’s just not what a representative of the people should be doing
March 28, 2012 at 7:29 AM
Great going Jamie, introducing NCO’s ten years after they were recommended by an independent planning panel is something to definitely crrow about.
For years, Council has been fobbing off residents concerns re high density development by claiming transition zones yet now we have a statement that they are yet to be introduced. Same thing with medium density – at the Mavho Street Planning Conference, Council was unable to define what they were.
Council has known about this issue for years and years and yet has done nothing about it.
This article is pure election year spin – there is no intention to do anything to address residents issues. If there was an intention then they would be able to say “we have done” or outline exactly what they intend to do. Instead all that’s presented is Council “would introduce”.