Draft ACT Planning Strategy up for discussion, infill ahoy!

Urban infill seems to me to be a solution looking for a problem.

I feel that it is strange that the alternatives currently seem to be only massive towers of flats or tiny blocks with houses or townhouses taking up the whole area in far flung places like Crace. In O’Connor, Lyneham etc. there are already a large number of studio flats (aka granny flats), which is a de facto recognition of the need for a greater density of housing. Dual occupancy, when I looked into it a few years back, required a block of over 800 metres. (I don’t know if this is now still the case, or, if so, that there are plans to change it?) This sort of small scale development, if done sensitively, can bring more people into an area without destroying its character, maintain gardens and provide housing in areas with easy access to public transport and bike paths/walking options. Such developments are often less destructive of the character of an area than huge houses being built, which are usually occupied by just one small family anyway, as was the small house that was replaced.

As a planning document, this has to be one of the worst I’ve seen for years. There are a lot of general statements that say very little, and the maps are almost useless because of their scale.

As a planning document, it lacks enough detail to be helpful: e.g. How much development are they looking at around Tuggers? What are those two little blobs in western Beclonnen (I think one might be Kippax).

As a strategic document: it doesn’t really offer a strategy. It outlines various iterations of infill in established areas, using (as another poster pointed out) sustainability and transport as excuses. No mention of options and the consequences. For example, what are the implications for transport, water, sewerage, education, food supply etc infrastructure of the proposed changes because of the likely resulting increase in population and population density.

Interestingly, Canberra goes from being the ‘bush capital’ to ‘the capital in the bush’.

dpm said :

Personally, I like the drive from Woden to Civic on Adelaide ave as there are plenty of tree and views to mountains in the middle of the city! I think it would suck if it was a 8 storey corridor of concrete apartments.

I agree that although it takes a central path, adelaide avenue is more of a parkway in terms of its design (overpasses etc) and it would anyway be a shame to infill this scenic area.

There doesn’t seem to be much work planned on the canberra avenue corridor to qbn it still seems like canberra is insulating itself with light industry wasteland against the qbn influence.

So hard to get through the greenwash of this document. Some infill is inevitable as canberra expandss but i can’t help but feel cynical that the tone of the document is preparing us for some unpopular decisions.

A really good rail based public transport system to new and existing outlying suburbs would have the same effect on lowering commute times as building apartments closer to the centre, but without the overcrowding and loss of green spaces.

arescarti42 said :

dpm said :

“By having higher housing density in or close to town and group centres, and along transport corridors, we will see a reduction in the community’s reliance on cars.”

So, are they planning on putting up a wall of apartments on both sides of the Tugg aprkway and GDE? Hahaha!

No. The plan makes the distinction between transit ways and parkways. Transit ways go through places and are what public transport would run along, and along which urban dense developments will occur. E.g. Northbourne Avenue and Yarra Glen. Parkways provide high speed routes around the city. E.g. Tuggeranong Parkway, GDE, Majura Road.

Of course! The media release etc talks about ‘transport corridors’ but they really meant ‘transit ways’. Gotta love bureaucratic semantics for the sake of it!
Anyway, Simon Corbell on 666 inthe arvo was mentioning Adelaide Ave as an example. As it is the same speed as the GDE it seems strange that one is a ‘transit way’ and the other a ‘transport corridor’ (and they both have about the same about of on/off ramps)….?
Personally, I like the drive from Woden to Civic on Adelaide ave as there are plenty of tree and views to mountains in the middle of the city! I think it would suck if it was a 8 storey corridor of concrete apartments.
Also, surely buses (or light rail) stopping every 200m along it to pick up all the apartment dwellers would kind of negate the ‘transit way’ aspect a bit? Of course, they could even make it like Northbourne, and put intersections and sets of lights evey 200m! Awesome transit way!! I look forrward to this bold new future of easy communting around Canberra. 🙂

The other strange thing about it all is the story on 666 started by saying Canberra needed another 65k of houses/apartments in the next x years to survive. Calll me stupid, but why is that exactly?

“… just pointing out that your quality of life generally is better in a lower-density suburban environment, where people can rattle around without impinging on other people’s space.”

Planning academic Patrick Troy warned us for years that there’s a sound reason behind people preferring suburban housing. I point out that people who live happily in high-density city housing are often those who have a beach house, a lodge, or a farm or country shack to escape to, or are rich enough to take frequent overseas holiday. Unless they have that regular escape hatch, I doubt whether high-density housing lives up to anything like the spin put up by – presumably suburban dwellers themselves – Simon Corbell, Katie Gallagher etc.
Another point: at one of the ACT Government sham consultation episodes last year, the “consultant demographer” lauded the joys of high-density housing for groovy young people. Um, what happens when they hit their mid-thirties, folks? Answer: as we all know, they compromise on eclat and groove, and head for the burbs to have kids.

shadow boxer said :

Far better to spread the employment than squash into the middle.

This is the right idea.

I sometimes wonder whether anyone advocating “higher density housing on main transport corridors” has ever lived in a high-density urban environment abutting an arterial road themselves. I did it for five years and hated four of them. Drunks staggering home at all hours on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights. High crime rates, especially car theft. Endless road noise. Poorly constructed apartments costing more than houses in the ‘burbs.

Also, a large apartment block next to a six-lane road is no place for raising kids.

Not having a whinge, just pointing out that your quality of life generally is better in a lower-density suburban environment, where people can rattle around without impinging on other people’s space. Anyone who feels guilty about living in a suburb and commuting 20 mins to work each day can easily offset his transport CO2.

shadow boxer said :

If you fill it all in it becomes just another crowded smelly noisy crime ridden city that are a dime a dozen anywhere. It’s not how it’s meant to be.

So true. Lots of people live here BECAUSE of the greenery. A Canberra that has been ‘infilled’ will hardly be a ‘bush capital’.

shadow boxer said :

1. Because in my experience governments tend to mostly care about the impacts of their decision in the very short term, with little regard to the long term.

2. Because I believe well planned densification will make Canberra more vibrant and potentially more sustainable and affordable. I also believe good densification will allow Canberra to grow without adversely effecting the quality of life and character of the city.

Yeh I kind of disagree, I reckon if you asked people what they like about Canberra and what makes it unique they would say it’s decentralized nature, it’s leafy spacious suburbs, it’s bush like green belts and it’s plethora of open space near the city.

If you fill it all in it becomes just another crowded smelly noisy crime ridden city that are a dime a dozen anywhere. It’s not how it’s meant to be.

Far better to spread the employment than squash into the middle. It’s not like we are running out of land or anything

I completely agree with Shadow Boxer.

shadow boxer said :

Yeh I kind of disagree, I reckon if you asked people what they like about Canberra and what makes it unique they would say it’s decentralized nature, it’s leafy spacious suburbs, it’s bush like green belts and it’s plethora of open space near the city.

If you fill it all in it becomes just another crowded smelly noisy crime ridden city that are a dime a dozen anywhere. It’s not how it’s meant to be.

Far better to spread the employment than squash into the middle. It’s not like we are running out of land or anything

I agree with pretty much all your points there, and I don’t think densification ruins any of it. As far as I’m aware no one is pushing to build out Commonwealth park or Black mountain or cut down the urban forest etc.

The thing that concerns me is if the alternative is just continuous suburban expansion then then a lot of the amenity gets ruined because you have to keep building bigger roads so people can get into the central areas or access starts to become poor because the roads are congested, there’s not enough parking, travel distances are long etc.

Dense areas don’t have to be ugly, crowded, noisy, and smelly. The original part of Kingston (i.e. not the part on the lake side of Wentworth Avenue) is one of the densest parts of Canberra (3000 people per km^2+) but it is also one of the most spacious and leafy areas too.

shadow boxer said :

Yeh I kind of disagree, I reckon if you asked people what they like about Canberra and what makes it unique they would say it’s decentralized nature, it’s leafy spacious suburbs, it’s bush like green belts and it’s plethora of open space near the city.

If you fill it all in it becomes just another crowded smelly noisy crime ridden city that are a dime a dozen anywhere. It’s not how it’s meant to be.

Far better to spread the employment than squash into the middle. It’s not like we are running out of land or anything

I agree that the beauty of Canberra is it’s decentralised nature. However, i don’t disagree with the concept of urban infill. The problem is not with the idea, its with the practice. I.e., construction quality in apartments/units. Look at Braddon (actually anywhere in Canberra), where you’ve got a bunch of poorly built, horribly ugly, totally dysfunctional and overpriced apartments where you have the extreme displeasure of being able to hear just about everything that your neighbours do because the build quality is rubbish.
So in lieu of our building regulations actually ensuring quality of living, i’ll take my overpriced quarter acre block with detached house and two cars every time.

I certainly don’t mean this nastily, but I think Canberra is the only city in Australia that has housing commission so close to the city. Despite the fact that they are not particularly nice places for people to live, they are located in some of the prime real-estate.

Anything which lays emphasis on Canberra as a developing city is a good thing.

aresecarti – noted.

The problem with the ‘active transport’ stats is that cycling isnt a 12 months a year proposition for the bulk of people choosing that method, and closing schools in local areas and building larger super schools forces parents to drive their kids to or from school, instead of letting them walk/cycle.

I dont have a position on housing density – but the govt needs to put in place proper infrastructure for a medium to high density city. buses wont cut it. The only transit oriented development associated with bus rapid transit are bus stations.

They bang on about sustainable this and target that, and carbon reduction etc, but more people = more cars, more buses = more diesel.

The planning document is a lot better than the transport plan, but neither plan has any funding models, just lots of aspirational targets.

I think we deserve better from this government. Where is the ‘vision’. if i drive a car to work i will know that i can use the GDE or the majura parkway. if i choose to move to Molonglo i have no idea how i will travel – except it will be by bus, and history shows that it will take longer, be indirect and fail to attract passengers in any great number.

16% – aim low achieve it and still fail.

Does Simon Corbell live in medium density housing himself?

arescarti42 said :

shadow boxer said :

arescarti42 said :

I find it refreshing to see a democratically elected government considering things that will occur more than 2 or 3 years away.

I personally approve of the urban intensification strategy, increased densities around major retail/employment centres and along transport corridors is what this city needs..

Why ?

1. Because in my experience governments tend to mostly care about the impacts of their decision in the very short term, with little regard to the long term.

2. Because I believe well planned densification will make Canberra more vibrant and potentially more sustainable and affordable. I also believe good densification will allow Canberra to grow without adversely effecting the quality of life and character of the city.

Yeh I kind of disagree, I reckon if you asked people what they like about Canberra and what makes it unique they would say it’s decentralized nature, it’s leafy spacious suburbs, it’s bush like green belts and it’s plethora of open space near the city.

If you fill it all in it becomes just another crowded smelly noisy crime ridden city that are a dime a dozen anywhere. It’s not how it’s meant to be.

Far better to spread the employment than squash into the middle. It’s not like we are running out of land or anything

Has anybody driven past Crace? Do any Rioters live in Crace at the moment? From a distance, it looks to me like a huge and randomly arranged jumble of ugly concrete blocks jammed tightly together without consideration of aesthetics or anything else, for that matter.

If that’s the “higher density” where this is all heading, then the city is screwed.

damien haas said :

Go and read the ‘Draft Transport Strategy’ – which is meant to guide transport planning until 2031 and you will see that the actual figure the ACT govt predict will use public transport in 2031 is 16%. Up from what they claim is 9% right now. Thats an amazingly low target.

This means that in 2031, our half million residents of a compact city of high density housing will still see 84 people in every 100 driving to work. That is not less reliance on cars, that is MORE cars. Very sustainable.

By pursuing a bus-only public transport strategy, the public transport patronage figure will only rise by a small amount. If they truly want to bring about a medium to high density ‘compact city’, they need to plan proper mass transit using light rail, and then encourage transit oriented development.

By encouraging medium and high density housing, without providing the proper public transport to support it, Canberra will experience all the disadvantages of high density housing, and none of the advantages.

Damien Haas – Chair, ACT Light Rail

I think your figures might be a little bit off Damien, in Canberra about as many people walk or cycle to work as use public transport, so if their 2031 target for PT usage is 16%, somewhat less than 84% will still be driving (not saying it still isn’t a low target though).

One thing to keep in mind is that you freeze new greenfield development now and put all the additional ~100k residents between now and 2031 in infill in the existing urban area and Canberra still wouldn’t be a dense city. Short of demolishing a lot existing suburbs, it is always going to be mostly low density suburbs.

The other thing to keep in mind is that as long as Canberra is mostly low density suburbs, and as long as cars are affordable by the majority of people (this may not be the case in the future) then the majority of people will still prefer to drive a lot of places.

The ACT Government is pursuing a medium to high density housing strategy, and using the ‘public transport, ‘transit route’ etc reasoning to justify it.

Go and read the ‘Draft Transport Strategy’ – which is meant to guide transport planning until 2031 and you will see that the actual figure the ACT govt predict will use public transport in 2031 is 16%. Up from what they claim is 9% right now. Thats an amazingly low target.

This means that in 2031, our half million residents of a compact city of high density housing will still see 84 people in every 100 driving to work. That is not less reliance on cars, that is MORE cars. Very sustainable.

By pursuing a bus-only public transport strategy, the public transport patronage figure will only rise by a small amount. If they truly want to bring about a medium to high density ‘compact city’, they need to plan proper mass transit using light rail, and then encourage transit oriented development.

By encouraging medium and high density housing, without providing the proper public transport to support it, Canberra will experience all the disadvantages of high density housing, and none of the advantages.

Damien Haas – Chair, ACT Light Rail

Keijidosha said :

“This new strategy will guide Canberra’s development for the next 30 years by planning a compact and sustainably efficient city,” he said.

Translation:
“This new strategy will ruin Canberra’s development for the next 30 years by allowing developers to haphazardly cram as much high density housing into existing suburbs as possible.”

My understanding (from talking to builders) was that the betterments tax was basically going to squash any such developments that hadn’t already been approved (as well as making already-approved-but-not-commenced-development blocks a lot more valuable).

It’s easier to let developers do work rather than plan and execute new suburbs away from the city centre. Ultimately, that’s about all they can do, I suspect.

shadow boxer said :

arescarti42 said :

I find it refreshing to see a democratically elected government considering things that will occur more than 2 or 3 years away.

I personally approve of the urban intensification strategy, increased densities around major retail/employment centres and along transport corridors is what this city needs..

Why ?

1. Because in my experience governments tend to mostly care about the impacts of their decision in the very short term, with little regard to the long term.

2. Because I believe well planned densification will make Canberra more vibrant and potentially more sustainable and affordable. I also believe good densification will allow Canberra to grow without adversely effecting the quality of life and character of the city.

dpm said :

“By having higher housing density in or close to town and group centres, and along transport corridors, we will see a reduction in the community’s reliance on cars.”

So, are they planning on putting up a wall of apartments on both sides of the Tugg aprkway and GDE? Hahaha!

No. The plan makes the distinction between transit ways and parkways. Transit ways go through places and are what public transport would run along, and along which urban dense developments will occur. E.g. Northbourne Avenue and Yarra Glen. Parkways provide high speed routes around the city. E.g. Tuggeranong Parkway, GDE, Majura Road.

“By having higher housing density in or close to town and group centres, and along transport corridors, we will see a reduction in the community’s reliance on cars.”

So, are they planning on putting up a wall of apartments on both sides of the Tugg aprkway and GDE? Hahaha!

arescarti42 said :

I find it refreshing to see a democratically elected government considering things that will occur more than 2 or 3 years away.

I personally approve of the urban intensification strategy, increased densities around major retail/employment centres and along transport corridors is what this city needs..

Why ?

I find it refreshing to see a democratically elected government considering things that will occur more than 2 or 3 years away.

I personally approve of the urban intensification strategy, increased densities around major retail/employment centres and along transport corridors is what this city needs.

The section on housing affordability seemed to be the usual tokenistic faff though. Mandating extremely small blocks because land is so outrageously expensive is a poor way to deal with affordability.

I also found it interesting that the majority of the images in the publication were of cities that were clearly not Canberra.

The Spatial Plan, which this will replace, says in its inside front cover:

” The Canberra Spatial plan provides clear strategic directions for the development of Cnaberra over the next 30 years and beyond. it is the territor’s ket strategic planning document for directing and managing urban growth and change”.

Strange how quickly 30 years go. I’ll be a great great grandma in no time at all.

“This new strategy will guide Canberra’s development for the next 30 years by planning a compact and sustainably efficient city,” he said.

Translation:
“This new strategy will ruin Canberra’s development for the next 30 years by allowing developers to haphazardly cram as much high density housing into existing suburbs as possible.”

—

“By having higher housing density in or close to town and group centres, and along transport corridors, we will see a reduction in the community’s reliance on cars.

Translation:
“By allowing urban ghettos to develop along already stressed transport corridors, we assume there will be a reduction in the community’s reliance on cars, because Gunghalin has no traffic problems whatsoever.”