|
Our recently completed Tzu Chi community centre promotional video. This building will house a community meeting and activity space, classrooms and a child care centre. Alternative housing types for best-practice urban design In ‘Part 2’ of the case study of the ‘Town of Seaside’ in Marcoola, Qld, our comparative analysis suggested that abandoning the original best-practice master plan strategies included in Stages 2 & 3 (and its regulatory code), had a negative impact on urban quality outcomes for the area. In ‘Part 3’, we highlight housing types (discarded in the ‘As Built’ version) that promote the implementation of the principles advocated by the new Planning Amendment (2020); QDesign: Principles for Good Urban Design in Queensland (2018); and Model Code for Neighbourhood Design: A code for reconfiguring a lot (2020). Two types stand out: T3 - Detached Laneway Housing and T5 - Adaptable Townhouse (in red, Fig. 1, below).  Type T3 - Detached Laneway Housing This type allows for multiple variations (Fig. 2), and is particularly effective at promoting high levels of walkability within interconnected road and pedestrian networks. The hierarchical arrangement (front streets and internal laneways), ensures streets are active public space, while service laneways have a more ‘private’ role accommodating garages, driveways and refuse areas. It also facilitates dedicated on-street parking which provides adequate shading and reduces driveway crossovers. Overall, a more walkable and safer environment is achieved, resulting in enhanced liveability and highly improved architectural and urban amenity (Fig. 3).   Type T5 – Adaptable Townhouses This type (Fig. 4), is ideal for a ‘best practice’ planning strategy offering multiple housing options through a variety of densities and uses.  The adaptability of the home-office or a home-shop type has several advantages, including:
To ensure the proper use of these types, and the proper implementation of best-practice planning principles, the master plan included a comprehensive ‘Urban & Architectural Regulatory Code’ (Fig. 5).  Best-practice vs. formulaic planning In ‘Part 1’ of the case study analysis of the beachside community of ‘Town of Seaside’, we discussed how this 2000 staged master plan pioneered walkable neighbourhood strategies that have just recently been adopted by Queensland Government legislation. The fact that only Stage 1 was completed (Figure 1), provided us with an opportunity to conduct a comparative study of Stages 2 & 3 (‘master planned’ vs. ‘as built’). In this study we examine how abandoning the original Stages 2 & 3 planning (and its regulatory code), affected the urban quality of the area. The study is structured around the urban design principles highlighted in Part 1, as showcased in the Planning Amendment (2020) and the Model Code (2020) assessment benchmarks. A. Multiple housing options: As shown in Figure 2, Stages 2 & 3 of the original master plan included a variety of densities and uses. It also offered seven ‘missing middle’ building types in the shape of medium-density apartments; attached dwellings and flexible home-office/shop alternatives. In contrast, in the area formerly occupied by Stages 2 & 3, the traditional suburban ‘detached dwelling’ (light blue) became the overwhelmingly predominant type.  This tendency is confirmed by Table 1, below:
Given open space meterage did not substantially change in the ‘as built’ scenario, this suggests that the lack of housing variety (or options) also had a negative effect on the development’s yield.  B. Community-oriented neighbourhood structure Deviating from the original master plan, no central mixed-use neighbourhood hub was planned for the area formerly occupied by Stages 2 & 3 (Fig. 3). The Stage 1 neighbourhood centre remained the only real neighbourhood centre.  C. Walkability The extensive Stage 1 footpath network that linked the community and ensured streets functioned as active public space, was not extended into the area formerly occupied by Stages 2 & 3. It was replaced by a traditional suburban layout characterised by fragmentation, poor connectivity and reduced walkability (Fig. 4).  D. Interconnected road network The original interconnected grid avoiding cul-de-sacs was disregarded (Fig 5. ‘Planned (Stage 1)’). Its hierarchical arrangement of public streets and semi-private laneways was ignored, resulting in a traditional suburban layout characterised, among others, by poor connectivity; cul-de-sacs (Fig. 5, ‘As built’); the predominance of ‘garage architecture’; and the degradation of the street as public space.  E. Open space Ignoring and reducing both the footpath and the interconnected road networks, not only restricted walkability and accessibility to open spaces, but limited view corridors and overall amenity (Fig. 6).  F. Dedicated on-street parking Dedicated on-street parking was disregarded which, in addition to a reduced footpath network, limits the street’s capacity to perform as active public space, degrading the overall quality of the streetscape.  Conclusions
Our comparative study suggests that abandoning the original planning principles for formulaic subdivision strategies, had a negative impact in the overall quality of the development of Stages 2 & 3. Major shortcomings include: poor walkability; reduced interconnectivity; degraded street activity; limited diversity; a fragmented neighbour structure; and a lack of housing options. Paradoxically, this traditional planning approach also resulted in a reduced development yield. In our third instalment we will examine key building types included in the ‘Town of Seaside Master Plan’. Pioneering the walkable neighbourhoods of the 21st century On 28 September, the Planning (Walkable Neighbourhoods) Amendment Regulation 2020 became the legal instrument that controls the assessment benchmarks for lot reconfiguration in Queensland. This milestone was the result of a long process that included landmark government initiatives such as QDesign: Principles for good urban design in Queensland (2018) and Model Code for neighbourhood design: A code for reconfiguring a lot (2020). The new assessment benchmarks are aimed at promoting more sustainable neighbourhoods that are walkable; healthier; better connected; better serviced; and less car dependant. Key changes for new subdivisions include:
These changes are great news for us at NA. We have been advocating this new kind of urbanism (and applying these planning principles) for over 20 years. In fact, back in 2000 we pioneered the ‘walkable neighbourhood’ with the master plan for the ‘Town of Seaside’, a 45 Ha development 110km north of Brisbane (Fig.1). The plan implemented a balanced planning approach that envisioned a walkable community without excluding the automobile.  The staged development was comprised of approximately 1,400 dwellings. Only Stage 1 of the master plan was completed (Fig. 2) and the land encompassing Stages 2 and 3 was later developed separately.
Conclusions Twenty years ago, the ‘Town of Seaside’ master plan pioneered the urban design strategies recently implemented by Queensland Government planning legislation. This makes Stage 1, the only completed stage, a perfect case study of the benefits of these strategies. Given the land encompassing Stages 2 and 3 was developed separately, in Part Two we will examine the consequences of discarding the regulatory code in the development of the remaining sites.  The precinct’s renewal could provide numerous benefits associated with integrated and sustainable land-use and transport planning. While respecting the existing character of a traditional low-density area, this type of adaptive redevelopment could improve its liveability by renewing stagnant portions of the urban fabric; providing better transport alternatives; offering new housing options; and creating new opportunities for business, recreation and community interaction. it would also be consistent with post-Covid planning strategies aimed at stimulating the development of more autonomous and sustainable local neighbourhood centres. You can read more about the Town of Seaside as part of our Urban Design series on Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/neylan-architecture  EAGLE JUNCTION STATION: A CHANCE FOR GENUINELY INTEGRATED LAND-USE AND TRANSPORT PLANNING22/10/2020
Eagle Junction Station precinct presents a unique opportunity for the true integration of sustainable land-use and transport planning. The precinct’s renewal could further boost the new high-frequency transit network now taking shape through the ‘Cross River Rail’ and ‘Brisbane Metro’ initiatives. The implementation of balanced mixed-use development intensification, in coordination with best-practice transit strategies, could transform Eagle Junction into a genuine rail-oriented precinct. A consolidated northern inner-city rail-oriented corridor would offer an alternative to unsustainable suburban fringe expansion and automobile dependency. You can read more about our Urban Design series on Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/neylan-architecture
As part of Neylan Architecture’s commitment to new ideas in an evolving urban environment, we are welcoming back Ricardo Madrid to the NA team. Ricardo completed a Master in Urban & Regional Planning at UNE which, in addition to his 20-year experience in the practice of architecture in SEQ, affords him a unique multi-disciplinary perspective to urban and architectural topics.
  Great to see Sunshine Coast Council heavily promoting appropriate and successful design standards in its beautiful region. We just received this luxurious coffee table book from Council and we are chuffed to see our Town of Seaside in Marcoola, featuring prominently in a double page spread. This neighbourhood design instigated by us in the late 90’s has matured as we had hoped. We are gratified to see the attributes we fought hard to implement back then are now starting to become mainstream in the development community and align with design principles and key values that Sunshine Coast Council want to see included in future development.
 Unfortunately, the full scheme proposed in our urban plan was not fully realised and three quarters of the land flagged for development was sold to a major developer who turned their back on the design principles and instead separated the scheme with a 2 meter high fence. You can read more about this in a previous post. Our inclusion was selected as part of a “collaboration between residents, design professionals, planners, professional associations and community groups of the Sunshine Coast who shared what they loved and valued about the region”. The release of the Design Guide by the Sunshine Coast Council coincides with their design series program which is running until December this year. You can view or purchase the book at Folio Books or via the Sunshine Coast Council website https://www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au/Development/Development-Tools-and-Guidelines/Sunshine-Coast-Design/News-and-Events/SCD-Book-Media-Launch
 Brisbane City Council’s announcement that Victoria Park Golf Course will be closed and the area converted to active parkland is a positive initiative worthy of our support. The proposal is as yet embryonic. Early detail can be accessed on Council’s website here: https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/things-to-see-and-do/council-venues-and-precincts/parks/brisbane%E2%80%99s-biggest-new-park-victoria-park-vision It is also gratifying to see that the COMMITTEE FOR BRISBANE has taken the initiative to survey its membership for ideas and has compiled worthwhile feedback to the Council. This feedback can be viewed here: https://bda.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/C4B_Victoria-Park-Submission-27.9.19.pdf It is worth noting that, some years ago when the Committee was then known as the BRISBANE DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, this Group facilitated a similar urban design workshop: the exercise at that time focused on ways to integrate the as yet unbuilt Inner City Bypass into the fabric of the city.  Both then and now a significant initiative was/is suggested. To quote from the latest feedback document this initiative involves: “…stitching together the city centre and one of Brisbane’s greatest assets…” . “…green space could extend across parts of the ICB to stitch together the two parts of the park…” So, in doing this we gain not only a new park but also we make it accessible to a much wider community who can access it on foot. Such an initiative is not unprecedented, having been undertaken in many parts of the world at various scales. Have a look at Boston’s “Big Dig”, Seoul’s Cheonggyecheon and Detroit’s I-696 Pedestrian Plaza. These are just a few examples of how the negative impact of traffic arteries can be overcome for the city’s benefit  In our instance the Inner City Bypass happens to run through a valley between higher grounds on either side. This makes it relatively simple to create a “land bridge” across the traffic artery: the parkland flowing down from Gregory Terrace can then link with and be part of the new Victoria Park. In this way the historic Spring Hill neighbourhood gains the benefit of direct pedestrian access into the new parkland. Similarly Herston and surrounding neighbourhoods gain enhanced accessibility without the need for vehicle trips.  Extending our thinking to a broader scale it is possible to conceive of the CBD as being enveloped by A NECKLACE OF CONNECTED PARKLANDS. This necklace can extend from the City Botanic Gardens up the sub-tropical boulevard that is Albert Street, through Roma Street Parklands and into the new Victoria Park. Further future initiatives could then facilitate a linkage through Fortitude Valley to New Farm Park.  A pedestrian journey such as this would amount to a significant lifestyle enhancement for our local population as well as creating a wonderful way for visitors to experience and explore our city
It is interesting to note that Sydney has begun studying its own “green necklace of cultural landscapes” - an initiative remarkably similar to what we are proposing in Brisbane. The Sydney proposal can be viewed at this link: https://www.foreground.com.au/cities/the-green-necklace-a-new-perspective-on-sydney-harbours-parklands/ As our city matures it is important that we find new ways of making the most of all its assets.   We think it is worthwhile passing on thoughts from an insightful posting on an urban design discussion forum we subscribe to. Michael Mehaffy was the author.
To clarify, the “Goldilocks Principle” is the principle that what is good at one scale may not be good – may in fact be very harmful - at another. For many things, as in the goldilocks fable there is a “just right” scale. To use a common example – if we take aspirin one tablet may be good, and two may be twice as good. But one hundred is not one hundred times as helpful! The same can be said about many urban phenomena, for example density. A doubling from say 15 units to the Hectare to 30 units to the Hectare can generally be a very beneficial thing, making public transit viable and bringing many other benefits at the neighbourhood scale. But 300 units to the Hectare is not beneficial – high density of this magnitude brings with it many negatives. Mehaffy’s final quotable quote “… the three most important factors in urbanism (with apologies to the real estate agents) are scale, scale and scale !...” Anyway a number of years ago we discussed this same topic of density at length in a previous posting on our website: we thought it might be worth re-visiting here http://www.neylan.com.au/conversation/inner-city-brisbane-a-few-comments-on-height-and-density |
