BACK TO THE FUTURE - PART 2

 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: 

• Detached (312) and semi-detached dwellings (36), represent 71% of units built so far in former Stage 2 & 3 areas.
• The original master plan envisioned 256 of these types for the same area, i.e. only 36% of the proposed total of 704.
• Interestingly, the original master plan was able to achieve a total of 704 dwelling units in the same area where just 487 have now been built.

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’.