Where's our Chief Architect?
I raised this question some time ago and SA remains the only australian state without a Chief Architect (
http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/for ... ect#p42740)
So it's no surprise that the "SA Institute of Architecture, Design, Planning & Landscape" (basically our brightest and best town planning & architectural guys and gals) raised their eyebrows en-masse when they read the Govts 30 year plan for Adelaide. The doc states the govt created the doc with input from "
the KPMG Consortium, South Australian Government agencies, local government, industry, interest groups and the community." - but it appears there was little actual input from
local industry, interest groups and the community.
I must say the above concerns me - but i'm very happy the SA Institute is formulating a detailed response to the govts plan. They have until Sept 30. Snap to it fellas!
I've also finished reading the govts 230+page document, and i must say it's a good sales/promotional document, but is very light on detail. A Sceptic might even say it's electioning propaganda - but i won't because i do believe the govts intentions are real.
From the Adelaide Review: with a few key points highlighted by myself...
GRAND DESIGNS... BUT WHERE ARE THE DESIGNERS?
Looking past the warm and fuzzy video of happy Adelaideans going about their business in state-of-the-art urban hubs that accompanied the document, there weren’t really many surprises. Of course we need to look at urban infill; we can’t spread out indefinitely. Public transport must take a central role in access to new communities and the CBD; we barely cope with the traffic as it is. And naturally we must concern ourselves with sustainability and environmentally sound design.
According to the government, we are on the cusp of a population explosion thanks to the mining and defence boom, but critics have already pointed out that the plan, rather that stopping urban sprawl in its tracks, has the potential to simply shift it into new, previously untouched areas on Adelaide’s fringes.
The new website that reveals the plan to the wider community states that the draft document is “the result of a whole-of-government process led by the Department of Planning and Local Government, with valuable contributions and assistance from the KPMG Consortium, South Australian Government agencies, local government, industry, interest groups and the community.” Curiously, this list includes interstate-based firms and a Sydney university but the representatives of the South Australian professional institutes for architecture, design, planning and landscape architecture were not invited to participate formally in the drafting of the plan.
The introduction and summary of the plan (the sections most likely to be read by the average time-poor citizen) refer to a return to Col. William Light’s vision for our city, and who can argue with that? Medium density living within walking distance of employment, transport and services is an admirable goal for Adelaide as it seeks to double its population and one would think that architects, planners, designers and landscape architects would be the professionals with the necessary skills to bring this vision to life. At this stage, our professional design community can only hope that the government takes a more collaborative approach to incorporating responses into their plan now that the draft is available for all to evaluate.
The Planning Institute has already called a public meeting this month under the title “Is this the Adelaide we all want?” to encourage a more robust public discussion of the plan’s details and other institutes are considering their options for responding formally.
Comment from the Design Institute’s national president Jo Cys sums up the concern within the professional community.
“As it stands the Draft Plan does not demonstrate sophisticated understanding of the urban realm. The concern is that transport will be the only orientation of new developments. The plan is relatively bereft of reference to how we will deal with localised production, social needs and quality of life for Adelaide’s population.”
Mario Dreosti, vice president of the Australian Institute of Architects (AIA) and director of the Brown Falconer Group, said the AIA is preparing a detailed submission in response to the government’s plan.
“The fundamental area of concern for the AIA lies in the effective delivery of these lofty aspirations.The consultation to date claims industry participation, however the peak bodies for design professionals have not been included in this consultation.
“Our current Thinker in Residence, Professor Laura Lee has spoken publicly on the necessity of integrated design processes in the delivery of our built environment. To achieve this, design professionals must provide input at the conception and planning stages, along with the community, users and, of course, the developers and builders who have already been consulted.
“Most South Australians would imagine that new housing developments, retail centres and other significant building projects must involve architects and other qualified design professionals. This is not the case under South Australian law where any person, qualified or not, is legally able to undertake building design. “You would think the draft 30 Year Plan for Greater Adelaide which speaks of “unique and beautifully designed buildings”, “very high standards for urban character and quality of design” and “an improvement in the quality of new housing design”, would have been created in direct consultation with architects and design professionals – this is not the case.
“The value of integrated design has been acknowledged within Australia and around the world. Every state in Australia, except South Australia, has a Government Architect, a renowned professional supported by a state government base who is responsible for ensuring the integration of high quality building design in all government policy – much like the role of Monsignor David Cappo as Commissioner for Social Inclusion.
“The AIA is concerned that the mechanisms proposed in the plan for ‘complying development’ status for applications, in concert with the ‘structure plans’ to improve planning efficiency and certainty, may lead to faster approvals but not necessarily to high quality design. The more prescriptive these structure plans become in an attempt to raise the pass bar for design quality, the less efficient the assessment process will be and the less opportunity for innovation.
“The AIA proposes that government adopt an integrated design practice for all works in the built environment where key contributors are included at project inception, and recognise the role that a Government Architect with a Centre for Architecture and the Built Environment would play in facilitating high quality development across greater Adelaide.”
Angela Hazebroek, president of the SA Division of the Planning Institute of Australia, says the ramifications of the plan will permeate the lives of every South Australian over the coming decades.
“The last major rethink of the Planning Strategy was the Planning Review in the early 1990’s. Interestingly this was also amidst a recession and a gloomy economic outlook.
“Among the more controversial elements of this plan are the new growth areas on the outskirts of metropolitan Adelaide. While the plan focuses on creating new housing along transit corridors and adjacent to activity centres, it is apparent that some of the new growth areas are located where mass transit corridors are not indicated. This is clearly not equitable or sustainable, as evidenced by the social isolation and transport disadvantage experienced by residents of suburbs in the outer South. Given that developers have purchased this land at rural values it is reasonable to expect that transport infrastructure could be funded through some form of value capture.
“We have strong concerns about the lack of public participation in decision making. A key plank of PIA’s policy position on growth management is scenario planning for different futures, enabling debate and choosing a preferred future through community engagement.
“The growth areas have been selected mainly on the basis of positions held by developers rather than what is in the interests of the broader community and environment. This could have been avoided by engaging with the community or at least releasing the supporting technical papers well before the draft plan was formulated to stimulate alternative ideas.
“PIA strongly supports the emphasis on corridors and transit-oriented developments (TODs). It is a bold move to identify planned mass transit links when previous governments have resisted showing unfunded links for fear of increasing expecations.
“The delivery of TODs and other aspects of the plan will only be possible if appropriate governance arrangements are in place.
“The Department of Planning and Local Government (DPLG) has primary responsibility for implementation of the plan, a considerable ask given that DPLG will not be spared from the reduction of 1600 public servants ordered in the Budget Review.
“While PIA supports using the private sector’s planning expertise and resources, we have concerns regarding the probity and transparency of these arrangements. There needs to be bi-partisan commitment to a code of conduct that deals with developers, political donations and conflicts of interest in strategic planning stages.
“Some regional communities have expressed grave concerns about the impacts of the proposed growth on the future of farming, protection of biodiversity and quality of life for new residents given the existing shortfalls in public transport, health, and community services and physical infrastructure.”
The Australian Institute of Landscape Architects SA Group collectively observed that the plan aims to “create a robust urban ecology by providing open spaces, greenways and green spaces in and around or on buildings”, but there is no mention of landscape architecture, landscape planning or landscape character anywhere in the document. Neither is there mention of green infrastructure or landscape urbanism.
The city is not a compact city as described in the plan but a linear corridor and the focus is on housing production and transport (road) infrastructure, with little detail of how urban development will embrace issues of sustainability, energy and water requirements and future community needs.
The AILA feel the important role public open space plays in community building, recreation, healthy lifestyle and social activities is not reflected in the plan. Smaller allotments, such as those proposed in TODs, will noticeably reduce the amount of private open space, and residents will have to seek alternatives for socialising and recreation. Investment in the public realm and the open space networks should be made with the same high expectations as those placed on buildings in regards to amenity, water and energy conservation and sustainability.
The plan provides direction on biodiversity but appears to lack understanding of the opportunities possible through the appropriate design of open spaces, streetscapes and private open space. Urban ecology occurs in the city and suburbs, not just in open space as suggested.
The AILA notes that the 12.5 percent contribution of open space remains unchanged and it appears that the opportunity to enforce this requirement as part of the Development Act has been missed, along with requirements to provide sustainable landscapes that could generate a network of green infrastructure providing services for urban development.
The public realm, through effective landscape planning and design, is able to bring together the many parts of a sustainable neighbourhood or city. It is essential that the development of the public realm, including existing and proposed open spaces, greenways, streetscapes and urban developments, reflect the same high standards required of the built form and transport infrastructure.
