High rise 'in-spansion' and community neighbourhoods

Proponents of high density living have cited many promised virtues as outcomes. These have included less traffic congestion, a cleaner environment, a more environmentally sustainable approach to urban growth, and the list goes on. But the limited evidence offered in support and the affront to common sense suggested by some of these arguments run counter to community wisdom. Even schoolchildren were smart enough to realise that more people per square kilometre will mean more congestion, more crowding in shopping centre carparks, more crowded buses, and more people wanting to walk dogs or play cricket in parks. So while the planning elites maintained their mantra, the community saw through it and called it "bull".

Here is where the density advocates have failed. Until they can support their arguments with hard evidence, and until they can mount convincing arguments that win community support, what they are proposing is in effect anti-democratic.

The realities of higher density housing will inevitably mean more people, more cars and more congestion, and more demands on open space for inner city and middle ring neighborhoods - not just in Brisbane but everywhere that the density mantra has taken root (which is most Australian capitals). To what extent should community opposition be written off as "NIMBYism" or, alternatively, treated as their democratic right to influence public policy? This alienation of local community opinion from the preferred patterns of urban expansion (or "in-spansion") outlined in most of our urban planning schemes is a real problem. Planning elites cannot expect political leaders to fight a tide of community opposition, unless they have in mind a more determinist political system.

This problem will only get worse, as more pressure is placed on our urban areas to grow within confined, existing boundaries. As it gets worse, the primacy of planning schemes will be further eroded. Unless some fundamental changes are made to planning schemes, more and more politicians will seek to intervene, case by case and site by site, in planning matters because of community confusion and neighbourhood opposition. Given the average standard of an Australian politician, this won’t be a good outcome for the developers, for planners, or for the community at large.

So where’s the resolution to this? Solutions aren’t so hard to identify. Here are a couple of suggestions:

• The backyard may or may not be a "right" but it is considered to be one by a majority of the community. Backyards of detached houses, as a place for children, for pets, for BBQs or family gatherings are important to a wide cross section of people. Density advocates may need to give some serious thought to how high density living will ultimately affect family living, and give serious and open thought to the consequences of their preferred policy approach. The same serious consideration to the management of increased demand for road space and open space would go a long way to answering legitimate community concerns. Just dismissing the concerns or ignoring their legitimacy won’t solve the problem.
   
• Planning schemes based on a democratic and transparent agreement of future development have a stronger chance of meaning something to all parties. The Brisbane City Council recently announced a "virtual" 3D model of the CBD and inner city, which will ultimately be used as a tool for assessing future proposals. There’s no valid reason and no technological obstacle to such a tool becoming the planning scheme itself. A visual realisation of future planning intent has a better chance of clearly communicating with the community at large. Widely accessible and readily understood equals transparency, not just for the community but also for the industry. The archaic regulatory and legislative nature of current planning instruments, with their convoluted terminology, only serves to confuse and alienate, which leads to distrust.
   
• Finally, elitism in planning whereby policy decisions are made by a collective of highly placed officials or industry professionals, with only limited reference to evidence of market preferences, to broad community opinion or even to accepted ways of life, can only fail. Democracy has its place in planning. That place should be in first determining an agreed overall strategy, right down to the local implications, communicating that via a transparent and "virtual" model widely accessible to all, and then leaving the plan to do its job.

None of this is new but if we’re to avoid a future of even greater confusion in planning policy, it’s now time the spin of planning reform was replaced with substance.

[Disclaimer: Yes, I’m a resident of the area affected by the Milton plans. No, I didn’t take part in any of the protest activities].