I am yet to read the associated paper, but speaking as a town planner who worked in a outer suburban Brisbane Council (Logan) I can say that we have over the years up-zoned the hell out of that place and for all intensive purposes it has not been the magic bullet that has delivered the benefits espoused in this talk. Yes it has allowed for development and some more intense development, but it has not resulted in a flood of housing supply, nor a reduction in housing prices. Just as one example and there are many more, we up-zoned Springwood (one of our major centres) to allow 90m mix use development as Code Assessable development in the 1990's and yet they still sit under-developed today. Zone it and they will come is much more complex than what is discussed here.
I personally don't believe in magic bullets as the reasons why things happen or not are complex and multi-discpline.
That said, if I had my magic wand, one of the radical initatives I would like to try is to introduce a No Zone approach and everthing is done by negotiation (with some caveats). Some of these caveats are:
1. A General urban zone covers all areas to be included within the metropolitian area.
2. A series of overlays that spell out the constraints / management requirements to any future development.
3. A proponent needs to come to Council with a proposal and apart from some pretty basic and essential development standards, the rest is left up to negoations between Council and proponent. However the kickers are:
a. Council does not have to approve it and it doesn't have to have to allow appeals. The guiding principle being - if it is "good" development (subjective - I know) then we will seriously consider and likely approve it. But if you are are just trying to maximise profit and yield then piss off.
b. The proponent must demonstrate the capacity to commence the development within 1 year and MUST commence by that time. No serious attempts at commencement - then it automatically lapses and again no appeals to extend its currency period.
c. Bonus points for bringing co-operative development practices (e.g consolidation of lots) and allowing intended end users to be involved in the planning, design and financing of the development at the front end of the process.
Obviously this goes against all planning law and practice to date, but I personally feel the planning system has been gamed to death and turned into a finacial commodity (rather than its orginal purpose of orderly development of towns and ciities) that has gotten us to where we are now. Something radical has to happen, otherwise we are infinately playing at the edges.
Obvious my proposal has the potential for a whole lot of corruption to flourish, so checks and balances would need to be built into any system.
In my view a no zone approach should eliminate a distinction between urban and rural. To delineate a zone in which only one or a few categories of use can be pursued limits supply and reduces complexity. It also tends to raise the bar so that an individual lacks the wherewithal to act as a developer which also tends to reduce complexity.
Consider the problem from the point of view of the welfare of a child.
In agrarian societies of old, before the transport revolution, settlements were smaller. They were a mixed use affair to cater for the full range of daily needs.
There was a baker, a butcher, a carpenter, a plumber, a roofing specialist, a priest, a grocer, perhaps a café proprietor expert in coffee making, a teacher, a tavern keeper who is a brewer, perhaps a packing shed for fruit and vegetables, a dairy, a piggery, a grower of grain, an orchardist, a mechanic, a farrier, a blacksmith, a shoemaker, a weaver and perhaps even a maker of musical instruments. There might be an old man in a shed who carved wooden whistles, perhaps a boat builder, a woman who takes in washing and a seamstress, a weaver, a keeper of goats, a breeder of horses and a man who keeps the grass healthy and trimmed on the bowling green.
This adds up to a rich texture of possible experiences to engage a child’s mind. All higgedly- pigly, joyously mixed up cheek by jowl, with sufficient separation to be considered neighbourly, and with enough accident of circumstance to be engaging, unsullied by the classifying and conforming notions of the of a ‘town planner’ and all the better for it. Unexpected turns, non-conforming habits, curves and angles, according to the rhythm of circumstance, the lie of the land, happenstance, and the energy and ambition of the builder.
In this way the village gets to express the entrepreneurial imagination of generations of people. It Is not the product of three or four months of frantic activity to construct something off a plan.
‘Town planning’ came with the factory town and the terrace house before the age of mass transport the bicycle and the automobile. Today, having the advantage of cheap transport, we have classification aggregation and separation to the point of disadvantage. It’s time to step back and ask, what have we lost and how would we go about regaining it?
There is a market based solution. Small format accommodation could be provided where land is cheaper. It will be rented rather than owned, with a decent separation between buildings that are owned by either an individual (preferably portable) or the landowner, community maintained lawn underfoot, shade trees incorporated. Shared community facilities would include consolidated garaging, a men’s shed, a sewing/crafts/skill learning room, a creche, a café and a football field to mention just a few. This would facilitate an ambience that favours neighbourly interaction. On no account should one surround a house with a fence. The house should be accessed on foot rather than in a vehicle. Children need to be free to roam. Families should, whenever possible, prepare food and dine under the sky rather than in front of the television set. Yes, it’s the sort of lifestyle that people enjoy when they go on holidays.
Ideally, the workplace should be nearby. To facilitate this, the community should encourage enterprise and facilitate mixed use.
It is commonly observed that children from high risk backgrounds, who formed bonds with caring and trusting other adults, turn out to be more resilient. Parents who have access to social networks and supports when looking after children report less parenting stress. Communities with strong formal and informal networks are associated with lower rates of child maltreatment, compared to communities characterized by social disorganization and low levels of social cohesion.
In Africa it is observed that The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down. The corollary is that it takes an entire village to raise a single child.
Find your village, let them help you and most important: let them help in raising your children.
Its obviously easier to create this village functionality in the countryside. To do it in the city is more difficult. But if you know what the objective is and keep it clearly in mind, an improvement should be possible. The objective is to create a true community where people know and rely upon each other.
Consider Jane Jacobs 'The Death and Life of American Cities'.
I would like to better understand what qualifies as upzoning for the purposes of the experiments discussed and monitoring their effect. There are so may areas which have been the focus of uplift policies - some some broader and some more strategically targeted (eg around transit), and many examples of other associated policies creating more flexibility in detached housing and other areas, flexibility around auxilllary dwellings, car parking rates for higher density housing etc. What is the threshold that distinguishes the examples in the One Final Effort context?
I am yet to read the associated paper, but speaking as a town planner who worked in a outer suburban Brisbane Council (Logan) I can say that we have over the years up-zoned the hell out of that place and for all intensive purposes it has not been the magic bullet that has delivered the benefits espoused in this talk. Yes it has allowed for development and some more intense development, but it has not resulted in a flood of housing supply, nor a reduction in housing prices. Just as one example and there are many more, we up-zoned Springwood (one of our major centres) to allow 90m mix use development as Code Assessable development in the 1990's and yet they still sit under-developed today. Zone it and they will come is much more complex than what is discussed here.
I personally don't believe in magic bullets as the reasons why things happen or not are complex and multi-discpline.
That said, if I had my magic wand, one of the radical initatives I would like to try is to introduce a No Zone approach and everthing is done by negotiation (with some caveats). Some of these caveats are:
1. A General urban zone covers all areas to be included within the metropolitian area.
2. A series of overlays that spell out the constraints / management requirements to any future development.
3. A proponent needs to come to Council with a proposal and apart from some pretty basic and essential development standards, the rest is left up to negoations between Council and proponent. However the kickers are:
a. Council does not have to approve it and it doesn't have to have to allow appeals. The guiding principle being - if it is "good" development (subjective - I know) then we will seriously consider and likely approve it. But if you are are just trying to maximise profit and yield then piss off.
b. The proponent must demonstrate the capacity to commence the development within 1 year and MUST commence by that time. No serious attempts at commencement - then it automatically lapses and again no appeals to extend its currency period.
c. Bonus points for bringing co-operative development practices (e.g consolidation of lots) and allowing intended end users to be involved in the planning, design and financing of the development at the front end of the process.
Obviously this goes against all planning law and practice to date, but I personally feel the planning system has been gamed to death and turned into a finacial commodity (rather than its orginal purpose of orderly development of towns and ciities) that has gotten us to where we are now. Something radical has to happen, otherwise we are infinately playing at the edges.
Obvious my proposal has the potential for a whole lot of corruption to flourish, so checks and balances would need to be built into any system.
In my view a no zone approach should eliminate a distinction between urban and rural. To delineate a zone in which only one or a few categories of use can be pursued limits supply and reduces complexity. It also tends to raise the bar so that an individual lacks the wherewithal to act as a developer which also tends to reduce complexity.
Consider the problem from the point of view of the welfare of a child.
In agrarian societies of old, before the transport revolution, settlements were smaller. They were a mixed use affair to cater for the full range of daily needs.
There was a baker, a butcher, a carpenter, a plumber, a roofing specialist, a priest, a grocer, perhaps a café proprietor expert in coffee making, a teacher, a tavern keeper who is a brewer, perhaps a packing shed for fruit and vegetables, a dairy, a piggery, a grower of grain, an orchardist, a mechanic, a farrier, a blacksmith, a shoemaker, a weaver and perhaps even a maker of musical instruments. There might be an old man in a shed who carved wooden whistles, perhaps a boat builder, a woman who takes in washing and a seamstress, a weaver, a keeper of goats, a breeder of horses and a man who keeps the grass healthy and trimmed on the bowling green.
This adds up to a rich texture of possible experiences to engage a child’s mind. All higgedly- pigly, joyously mixed up cheek by jowl, with sufficient separation to be considered neighbourly, and with enough accident of circumstance to be engaging, unsullied by the classifying and conforming notions of the of a ‘town planner’ and all the better for it. Unexpected turns, non-conforming habits, curves and angles, according to the rhythm of circumstance, the lie of the land, happenstance, and the energy and ambition of the builder.
In this way the village gets to express the entrepreneurial imagination of generations of people. It Is not the product of three or four months of frantic activity to construct something off a plan.
‘Town planning’ came with the factory town and the terrace house before the age of mass transport the bicycle and the automobile. Today, having the advantage of cheap transport, we have classification aggregation and separation to the point of disadvantage. It’s time to step back and ask, what have we lost and how would we go about regaining it?
There is a market based solution. Small format accommodation could be provided where land is cheaper. It will be rented rather than owned, with a decent separation between buildings that are owned by either an individual (preferably portable) or the landowner, community maintained lawn underfoot, shade trees incorporated. Shared community facilities would include consolidated garaging, a men’s shed, a sewing/crafts/skill learning room, a creche, a café and a football field to mention just a few. This would facilitate an ambience that favours neighbourly interaction. On no account should one surround a house with a fence. The house should be accessed on foot rather than in a vehicle. Children need to be free to roam. Families should, whenever possible, prepare food and dine under the sky rather than in front of the television set. Yes, it’s the sort of lifestyle that people enjoy when they go on holidays.
Ideally, the workplace should be nearby. To facilitate this, the community should encourage enterprise and facilitate mixed use.
It is commonly observed that children from high risk backgrounds, who formed bonds with caring and trusting other adults, turn out to be more resilient. Parents who have access to social networks and supports when looking after children report less parenting stress. Communities with strong formal and informal networks are associated with lower rates of child maltreatment, compared to communities characterized by social disorganization and low levels of social cohesion.
In Africa it is observed that The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down. The corollary is that it takes an entire village to raise a single child.
Find your village, let them help you and most important: let them help in raising your children.
Its obviously easier to create this village functionality in the countryside. To do it in the city is more difficult. But if you know what the objective is and keep it clearly in mind, an improvement should be possible. The objective is to create a true community where people know and rely upon each other.
Consider Jane Jacobs 'The Death and Life of American Cities'.
I would like to better understand what qualifies as upzoning for the purposes of the experiments discussed and monitoring their effect. There are so may areas which have been the focus of uplift policies - some some broader and some more strategically targeted (eg around transit), and many examples of other associated policies creating more flexibility in detached housing and other areas, flexibility around auxilllary dwellings, car parking rates for higher density housing etc. What is the threshold that distinguishes the examples in the One Final Effort context?