2016_Background noise

Australian Planner

ISSN: 0729-3682 (Print) 2150-6841 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rapl20

Background noise: a review of the effects of background infill on urban liveability in Perth

Julian Bolleter

To cite this article: Julian Bolleter (2016): Background noise: a review of the effects of background infill on urban liveability in Perth, Australian Planner, DOI: 10.1080/07293682.2016.1245201

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2016.1245201

Published online: 14 Nov 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rapl20

14 November 2016, At: 16:52

Backgroundnoise:areviewoftheeffectsofbackgroundinfillonurban liveabilityinPerth

JulianBolleter

AUDRC,UniversityofWesternAustralia,Perth,Australia

ABSTRACT

WhileActivityCentresandActivityCorridorsaretheflagshipsofWesternAustralianState Governmenturbaninfillpolicy,muchofinfilldevelopmentwhichisbeingdeliveredis ‘backgroundinfill’– thesubdivisionofsuburbanlotstocreatetwotofivenewdwellings. ThispaperassessesthisbackgroundinfillwithreferencetotheStateGovernment’sgoalof enhancing ‘liveability’ usingcriteriasuchasaccesstonature,culturalassetsandpublic transport.Theconclusionisthatbackgroundinfillisproducingmixedresults,inallofthese areas,andthatthepoliciesproducingsuchinfillrequireattention.

Introduction

Perth’soverarchingplanningdocument ‘Directions 2031’1 aimstoachieveacitywhichis ‘liveable,prosperous,accessible,sustainableandresponsible’ (Western AustralianDepartmentofPlanning 2010,43).Taking theseaimsatfacevalue,thispaperexploreswhether thepredominateformofinfillinPerth, ‘background infill’ (adhocinfilldevelopmentyieldingfewerthan fivedwellings)isdeliveringtheurbanliveabilitythat theStateGovernmentisaspiringto.Theoverarching researchquestionstructuringthisevaluationis:

Towhatdegreehasbackgroundinfill,inPerthtodate, deliveredtheurbanliveabilitythattheWesternAustralianStateGovernmentisaspiringtothroughits planningforurbaninfill?

Method

Theresearchmethodsemployedtoanswerthisquestionaretwofold.Firstly,ageospatialdrivenmodelling andcorrelationalstrategy(SwaffieldandDeming 2011, 37)isusedtofindcorrelations,orotherwise,between sitesofbackgroundinfillandcriteriawhichcanbe usedtoassessliveability – includingaccesstonature, culturalassetsandpublictransport.Secondly,anevaluativeresearchstrategy(SwaffieldandDeming 2011, 39)isusedtoevaluatewhetherthemappedconditions indicateanincreaseordecreaseinurbanliveability. Thiswrittenevaluationiscarriedoutinrelationto thegeospatialmapping,inconjunctionwithsurveys ofcommunitypreferences,inparticularthecomparativelyrecent ‘TheHousingWe’dChoose’ housingpreferencessurvey(CurtinUniversityandHamesSharley 2013),andPerth’soverarchingplan ‘Directions

ARTICLEHISTORY

Received16June2015

Accepted24August2016

KEYWORDS Infilldevelopment;urban consolidation;greyfields; sustainability;liveability; publicopenspace

2031’(WesternAustralianDepartmentofPlanning 2010).

Urbanliveability

Firstly,thedefinitionofurbanliveabilitythatthispaper willemploytoassessbackgroundinfillneedstobe clarified.Indeedrelationshipsbetweenurbandensificationandurbanliveabilityareverycomplicated.They involvemanyfactorssuchas ‘buildingheight,design andaesthetics;buildingheritage;housingaffordability; trafficcongestionandparkingspace;openspaceand parkland;andadditionalinfrastructureandservices forincomingresidents’ (McCreaandWalters 2012, 193).Compoundingthiscomplexityisthaturbanliveabilityalsodependsonresidents’ perceptions,which inevitablyvarybetweenindividualsandsuburbs (McCreaandWalters 2012,193).

TheEconomistIntelligenceUnit(EIU),whichis responsibleforthecalculationoftheEIU’swellregardedliveabilityindex,employsanumberofcriteria todetermineurbanliveabilitywhicharebasedona city’sspatialcharacteristics(TheEconomistIntelligenceUnitLimited 2012,7).Theseincludeaccessto nature,culturalassets,publictransport,amongstothers (TheEconomistIntelligenceUnitLimited 2012,8). Thesethreebasiccriteriaalsoresonateinthehousing preferencesexpressedbyPerth’sresidentsincomparativelyrecentsurveys.Forexample,69%ofrespondents surveyedinthe ‘TheHousingWe’dChoose’ study regardedadwellingbeingnearaparkorreserveas beingimportant,and77%thepresenceoftrees,73% havingeasyaccesstoshopsand71%beingnearpublic transport(CurtinUniversityandHamesSharley 2013, 19).Furthermore,thesesamecriteriaarealso

promotedforasbeingthebasisforPerth’splanningin thecity’soverarchingplanningdocument(Western AustralianDepartmentofPlanning 2010,45).While theEIU’scriteriaforliveabilityhavebeenappliedglobally,itisapparenttheyresonateinPerthbothforresident’sandStateGovernmentplanners.

Assuchthispaperadoptsthecriteriaofaccessto nature(bothintheformofurbanforestsandopen space),accesstoculturalassets,andaccesstopublic transportasthebasisforthefollowingdiscussionon liveability.

Backgroundinfill

SincePerth’s1990 ‘Metroplan’ strategy,Perthhashad metropolitanscaleplanningwhichaimedtoconsolidatedevelopmentinrelationtoefficientpublictransportroutes(DepartmentofPlanningandWestern AustralianPlanningCommission 2015,12).These principleswerefurtherextendedinPerth’s2004 ‘NetworkCity’ plan.Thisplancomprisedtwomain elements:ActivityCorridorsandActivityCentresand castPerthasa ‘connectedcity’ withhigherdensities aroundtransportnodesandareasofemployment (DepartmentofPlanningandWesternAustralian PlanningCommission 2015,12).ThisTransportOrientatedDevelopment(TOD)philosophywas retainedin ‘Directions2031’ (DepartmentofPlanning andWesternAustralianPlanningCommission 2015, 21).2

WhileActivityCentresandActivityCorridorsare theflagshipofthecurrentWesternAustralianGovernmentinfillstrategy,alargeamountofinfilldevelopmentisoccurringthroughthe ‘doityourself’ subdivisionofbackyards.Thisformofinfilldevelopmentisreferredtoasadhocsubdivisionor ‘background’ infill – namelysmallprojectsyieldingfewer thanfivegroupdwellings(DepartmentofPlanning andWesternAustralianPlanningCommission 2014, 107)(Figure1).Thisbackgroundinfillischaracterised bysemidetached,surveystrata,groupdwellings(generallysinglestorey)organisedaroundacommunaldrivewayspaceleadingtoprivategaragesadjacenttothe dwellings.

Theprevalenceofbackgroundinfilldevelopmentis confirmedbyPerth’sUrbanGrowthMonitorpublication – indeedbetween2011and2012,infillprojects wheredevelopmentresultedinbetweenonetofivenew dwellingsperlot(i.e.backgroundinfill)accountedfor 81%ofalltheinfilldwellingsconstructedinthatperiod (DepartmentofPlanningandWesternAustralian PlanningCommission 2014,113).Thedatafor2011–2012arenotananomalyeither – thisbreakdownof infilldwellingtypesbeinggenerallyconsistentwith thehistoricalaverageacrossthePerthmetropolitan andPeelregions(DepartmentofPlanningandWesternAustralianPlanningCommission 2014,113).Put

simply,despite25yearsofTODplanninginPerth, moreinfillisbeingdeliveredinanadhoc, ‘background’ mannerthanisbeingdeliveredthroughStrategic ActivityCentresorActivityCorridors.

Thisdivergentsituationisacknowledgedbythe DepartmentofPlanningwhichpredictthat ‘asthedensitypotentials(asdefinedbytheresidentialdesign codesorR-Codes)arefullyrealised,largerscaleinfill projectswillplayapivotalroleinachievingtheinfill dwellingtargets’ (DepartmentofPlanningandWesternAustralianPlanningCommission 2014,113).As theyexplain,theshifttolargerscaleinfillprojectshas yettooccurasaccesstofinanceandmarketconditions hasconstrainedtheappetiteforinvestmentinthese typesofprojects.Overtime,aslargerscaleinfillprojectsareintroducedandstructureplanningprogressed,itisanticipatedthatprojectswithhigher dwellingyieldsperlotwillmakeupanincreasingproportionofallinfilldevelopments.(Departmentof PlanningandWesternAustralianPlanningCommission 2014,113)

Whilethismayturnouttobetrue,thispaperproposes thatthereisvalueindirectingattentiontothetypeof infilldevelopmentthatisgenerallybeingdelivered (i.e.backgroundinfill)ratherthanwhatisbeing aspiredtobutmaynoteventuateatthescalepredicted.

Whyisbackgroundinfilldevelopmentdominant? Firstandforemost,thereasonthatahighpercentage ofinfilldevelopmentishappeninginanadhocmannerreflectsthedifficultiesofachievingActivity Centres,andtoalessdegreeActivityCorridors. Whenconsideredatthemetropolitanscale,thecorrelationofresidentialdensityandpublictransport foundinPerth ’ sActivityCentresappearscommonsense,butonthegrounditisnotwithoutitsissues. Thesetrainstationsoftenhaveheritagebuilding stock,havefragmentedlandownership,andaretypicallycomplex ‘knots’ ofintersectingroadandrail infrastructure(particularlywhereraillinesrunin themiddleofthefreewaysuchasonPerth’snorthern andsouthernraillines),andhaveexpansivecarparks sopeoplecan ‘parkandride ’,whichconflictswiththe attempttocreateurbanwalkabletowncentres.Furthermore,thereisgenerallynotmuchcommunity desiretoresideinTODActivityCentresettings,due toconcernsabouttrainnoise,privacyandcommuter carparking(HollingandHaslamMcKenzie 2010, 284).AnumberofotherActivityCentresarealsoproposedaroundbigboxshoppingmalls,whichare,in manyrespects,theantithesisofthedenseurbanvillagesproposedinActivityCentreplanning – the mallsbeingcardominated,disconnectedfromthe surroundingurbanformandnotattractiveresidential environments.

Secondly,thepredominanceofbackgroundinfill developmentisaresultofthepoliticalstructureby

whichinfilldevelopmentisrealised.Thisstructureis dividedbetweenlocalandstatelevelswherethestate setsinfilltargetsforlocalgovernmentareas,yetlocal governmentstakemuchoftheresponsibilityforinfill developmentdecisions(DoveyandWoodcock 2014, 68).Suchlocalgovernmentsarefrequently ‘electedto enforcetheanti-developmentviewsoftheirresidents’ andassuchdisperseasmuchinfilldevelopmentina formwhichisaspalatabletoexistingresidentsaspossible(i.e.inalowtomediumdensityanddispersedpattern)(DoveyandWoodcock 2014,68).Furthermore, localcouncilsaretypicallynotfundedorstaffedto dealwiththecomplicationsoftransit-orienteddevelopmentsuchasActivityCentresandActivityCorridors(DoveyandWoodcock 2014,68)andassuch defertoareasonablyeasytoadministerbackground infillmodelwhichcanoccur ‘incrementallywith unfoldingmarketdemand’ (Gray,Gleeson,andBurke 2010,336).Incontrast,ActivityCentresandActivity Corridorsrequiredeterminedgovernmentpolicyand investment(Gray,Gleeson,andBurke 2010,336)and assuchposesignificantchallengesforcashstrapped localgovernments.

Asaresultofthesituationdescribed,thereexistsa ‘divergencebetweenthecompactcityimaginedin metropolitanplansandwhatisoccurringontheground inAustraliancities’ (Gray,Gleeson,andBurke 2010, 336)andinPerthinparticular.Putsimply,entrenched TODideologyhas,formany,obscuredtherealityof whatpoliciesforinfilldevelopmentareactually achieving.

BackgroundingliveabilityinPerth

Thefollowingsectionsofthispaperexplorethenature ofbackgroundinfilldevelopmentinPerthinrelationto theWesternAustralianStateGovernment’sowngoals tocreatealiveablecity.

Accesstonature

‘Contactwithnature’ isregardedasauniversalrequirementof ‘urbanlandscapes’ (ArvolaandPennanen 2014,8),asentimentalsostronglysharedbyPerth’ s residents(CurtinUniversityandHamesSharley 2013,68).Ofcourse, ‘nature’ isaslipperytermthat

Figure1. BackgroundinfillinatypicalmiddleringPerthsuburb.Typicaladhocsubdivisionor ‘background’ infill – namelysmall projectsyieldingfewerthanfivedwellings – inPerth’snortheasternsuburbofbayswater(Imagecourtesyofnearmap).

needsfurtherclarification.Johndixonhunthasdivided natureintothreecategories,respectivelyfirstnature, secondnatureandthirdnature.Firstnatureisthepristinenatureofwilderness,secondnaturereferstoculturallandscapeswhichcanbetakentoincludeallthe landscapesofourcitiesand ‘thirdnature’ acategory whichincludesallparksandgardens(HuntinThompson 2011,19).Giventhelackofapristine,untouched byman,naturewithinasprawlingcitylikePerth, thispaperwillrefertohunt’ssecondandthirdcategoriesastheyexpressthemselvesinprivateandpublic openspaceandurbanforests,respectively.

Privateopenspaceamenity

Onecriterionofliveabilitythatfeaturesinthevast majorityofurbanliveabilitymatricesisopenspace. Indeed,theAustralianlifestyleisfamedfortheability to ‘liveoutdoors,inprivate’– asituationenabledby freestandinghouseswithfrontandbackgardens,set outatatypicallylowdensity(Wheeler 2010,47).Evidenceofapredilectionforprivateopenspaceisthata separatehousesetwithinitsowngardenisthepreferreddwellingtypefavouredby78%ofPerth’sresidents(CurtinUniversityandHamesSharley 2013,4). Thisisforgoodreason,homegardenshavebeen

showntobeamajorcontributortothequalityoflife (Syme,Fenton,andCoakes 2001,161).Amongother functions,theresidentialgardensprovideforboth activeandpassiverecreationaswellasthespacetocultivatefruitandvegetables.Furthermore,itcanprovide an ‘individuallyaestheticallypleasingenvironmentand makesanimportantsocialstatement’ (Francisand HesterinSyme,Fenton,andCoakes 2001,161).The ongoingpsychologicalbenefitsofthehomegarden havealsobeenwelldocumented(KaplaninSyme,Fenton,andCoakes 2001,161).

Notsurprisinglybackgroundinfilldevelopmentin Perthtendstoprovidemuchlessgardenareaperperson,thananun-subdivided ‘classic’ quarteracreblock thatprovidedapproximately1000m2 perhousehold (Seddon 1994,27).Compoundingthissituation muchoftheopenspacethatisprovidedinabackgroundinfillsituationisresidualspace,generatedby theStateGovernmentcontrolledResidentialDesign Codes(R-codes)whichdictateaminimum1.5msetbackbetweenlotlinesandbuildingedges(Stateof WesternAustralia 2010)whichwhen ‘builtout’ tends toresultinnarrowcorridorsofprivateopenspaceon anumberoflotedges.Aproclivityforprivatecarparkingadjoiningprivatedwellingsalsomeansthat,in

Figure2. Typicalbackgroundinfilldevelopment.Backgroundinfillischaracterisedbysemidetached,surveystrata,groupdwellings (generallysinglestorey)organisedaroundacommunaldrivewayspaceleadingtoprivategaragesadjacenttothedwellings.

manycases,some40%ofthelotareaisdedicatedtocar parkingandmovement(Figure2).

Publicopenspaceamenity

Thelossofprivateopenspaceisonlypartlycompensatedforinthepublicrealm,despitethefactthat 69%ofpeopleinPerththinkresidingnearaparkis important(CurtinUniversityandHamesSharley 2013,68).Whilemiddleringlocalgovernmentareas provideasubstantial40m2 ofpublicopenspaceper person(Figure3) – ittendstobeofapoorquality andissometimesnotwellutilised – evidenceof whichcanbefoundindataconcerningphysicalinactivitylevelsinresidents(Figure4).Perhapsthisis because,acrossPerth’sinnerandmiddleringsuburbs wheremostbackgroundinfillisoccurringparksare poorlydesignedbeingtypicallyturfed,sometimeshavingonlyscatteredremnanttrees.Reflectingthis, amongtheparksinthisarea,22%havenotrees,only

10%havesignificantwildlifefunctionandonly1% havewetlands(despitethefactthatPerthwashistoricallyalandscapeofwetlands)(CentrefortheBuilt EnvironmentandHealth 2013).Furthermore,74%of parkshaveapervasiveunderlayofreticulatedturf poorlysuitedtoPerth’sdryingclimate,54%haveno walkingpaths,16%havepicnictablesandonly9%of parkshavebarbecuefacilities(CentrefortheBuilt EnvironmentandHealth 2013).

Despitethesignificantamountofbackgroundinfill developmentthathasoccurredtodate,asthedata aboveatteststherehasbeennosystematicupgradeof thepublicdomaintoservicethesehigherdensityresidents.ThisisincontrastwithNewSouthWaleswhere developersarerequiredtomakecontributionstolocal councilsforopenspaceneeds,resultingfromnew developmentunderSection94oftheEPAAct1979 (Searle 2011,202).ThefailureofPerth’ sopenspaces tobeupgradedtocompensateforthelossofprivate

Figure3. Publicopenspaceoverlaidwithbackgroundinfillinthecentralsubregion(CSR).Perth’sCSRprovidesahighamountof publicopenspace(POS),some40m2 perperson.However,arguablythePOSsinmanyoftheseurbanareasarenotwelladaptedto theneedsofpeopleresidinginbackgroundinfill(GISdatacourtesyofLandgateandtheDepartmentofPlanning).

Figure4. Inactivitylevels(%)overlaidwithbackgroundinfill.Localgovernmentareaswithasignificantamountofbackgroundinfill developmenttendtobecorrelatedwithhigherinstancesofphysicalinactivity;however,itisdifficulttoascertaintowhatdegree thereductionofprivateopenspace,andagenerallypoorqualitypublicdomain,isthecauseofthis(DatacourtesyofTheAustralian socialhealthAtlasandLandgate).

openspaceisimportantbecauseresearchtellsusthat backgroundinfillresidentsrequirequitedifferent thingsfromthepublicspacethantheirsuburban counterparts.

Forexample,inaPerthstudyonthevisitationof localparksandwetlandsinsmallerlotdevelopments of500m2 orless(suchasproducedinbackground infill),itwasfoundthatthereisincreasedvisitationof wetlandsbutnotparks(Syme,Fenton,andCoakes 2001,168).Thesewetlandsarecharacterisedby ‘natural vegetationatthelakesidethroughwhichvisitorscan walk,birdlife,remnantsofnativetrees,playground equipmentandsomelawnforsports’ (Syme,Fenton, andCoakes 2001,163).Extrapolatingfromthisfinding, itwouldseemthatresidentsinbackgroundinfillare seekingaconnectionwith ‘nature’ thatmaybemissing intheirmuchreducedandtypicallyresidualprivate openspacedomains,andintypicallyecologicallybarren

parkland(CentrefortheBuiltEnvironmentandHealth 2013).Compoundingthissituation,accesstomajor regionalopenspaces,whichfunctionasnaturereserves inPerth(andexistingsomewherebetweenHunt’sfirst andsecondnatures),arealsolimitedinmanyofthe rapidlydensifyingmiddleringsuburbs(Figure5). Giventhedearthofappropriatelydesignedpublic openspace,therelativeinaccessibilityofregionalopen spaceandarelativeabsenceofprivateopenspace,backgroundinfillisarguablyleadingtoadiminishedquality oflifeforitsresidents,inthisparticularrespect.

Theurbanforest

Evidenceoftheimportanceoftheurbanforestto urbanliveabilityinPerthisthat77%ofrespondents tothe ‘TheHousingWe’dChoose’ studyconsidered thatthe ‘presenceoftrees’ isanimportantdwelling attribute(CurtinUniversityandHamesSharley 2013,

Figure5. Regionalopenspaceoverlaidwithbackgroundinfill.AsignificantproportionofbackgroundinfilldevelopmentinPerth’s northernCSRisnotwellservedforregionalopenspace(GISdatacourtesyoftheWesternAustralianDepartmentofPlanning(allnot capitalisedversionsofDoPneedtobeupdated)andLandgate).

19).MoreoveranalysisofhousepricesinPerthsupportsthis.Acomprehensiveexercisetounderstand thevalueeffectsoftreecoverfoundthattheproportion oftreecoveronneighbouringparks,reservesorstreet vergesadjacenttotheproperty,hadasignificantand positiveimpactonpropertyprices(Pandit,Polyakov, andSadler 2013,16).

DespitetheapparentimportanceoftreestosupportingurbanliveabilityinPerth,oneeffectofbackground infillhasbeenadeclineinurbanforestcoverinPerth’ s innerandmiddleringsuburbs.Whiletherearesome exceptions,thesuburbswiththelowestpercentageof urbanforestcovertendtobethosethathavenotresisted backgroundinfill(Figure6).Examplesoftheeffectsof backgroundinfilldevelopmentonurbanforestcover canbefoundintheinnerandmiddleringsuburbsof SouthPerth,Bayswater,StirlingandCanning(all whichhavehighinfilldevelopmenttargets)withthe percentageoftotalvegetationclearedbetween2001

and2004amountingto13%,12%,11%and11%, respectively(McManus 2010,350).Onereasonthat backgroundinfilldevelopmenthasresultedinthe removalofurbanforestcoverisalargeproportionof urbantreesaresituatedonprivateland – indeedthis canbemorethan60%(inBrunnerandCozens 2013, 234).Compoundingthis,treesandmaturevegetation areoften ‘treatedastrimmingstothedesignedurban environmentandareaffordedlittleornoprotection againsttheexigencyofmeetingdevelopmentaspirations’ (BrunnerandCozens 2013,232).

Theclearingofthissubstantialurbanforesthasa numberofpotentialramificationsfortheprovisionof ecosystemservices,andinturnurbanliveability.In short,theurbanforestprovidesenvironmentalbenefits, includingreducingairpollution,sequesteringgreenhousegasses(BrunnerandCozens 2013,232),infiltratingandcleaningstormwater,minimisingtheimpactof heatislands,amelioratingthelocalclimate,and

Figure6. PercentageurbanforestcoverbysuburboverlaidwithbackgroundinfillintheCSR.Wealthysuburbswhichhavetended toresistinfilltypicallyhaveahigherpercentageofforestcover(∼20%).InthenortheasternsuburbsoftheCSR,backgroundinfill tendstobecorrelatedwith ∼10%forestcover(GISdatacourtesyoftheWesternAustraliandepartmentofplanningandLandgate).

supportingbiodiversity(DepartmentofPlanningand WesternAustralianPlanningCommission 2015,55).

Thepartialclearingofanurbanforestforbackground infilldevelopmentthreatenstheprovisionoftheseecosystemservices – serviceswhichareoftenprovidedin traditional,un-subdivided,vegetatedsuburbanform (Seddon 1994;Troy 2004;Hall 2010) – andarguably seriouslydiminishestheliveabilityofanurbanarea.

Accesstoculturalassets

Animportantfacetofurbanliveabilityisdefinedbythe EIUasaccesstoculturalassets(2012,8).Cultural assetsisavaguetermandatoneendofthescalecan refertoworldclassculturalattractionssuchasan operahouseandattheotherendofthescale,alocal communitycentre,caféorshop.Atthemoremodest endofthisscale, ‘ easyaccess ’ toculturalassetssuch aslocalshopsisregardedasacrucialdwellingattribute

byPerth’sresidents – indeed73%ofrespondentsto ‘TheHousingWe’dChoose’ thoughtthiswasan importantdwellingattribute(CurtinUniversityand HamesSharley 2013,19).

Sotowhatdegreeisbackgroundinfillresultingin thislatterformofculturalassetsinPerth?Provision ofculturalassetscanbeestablishedinpartthrough themappingofPrimaryCityCentres,Secondary TownCentres,andmajorandminorgrowthareasas definedinPerth’sActivityCentrepolicy.Thehigher ordercentresinthisnetworkwillincludediscount departmentstores,supermarkets,conveniencegoods, small-scalecomparisonshopping,personalservices andsomespecialtyshops(StateofWesternAustralia 2005,4146).Thelowerordercentrestendtoinclude asupermarket,personalservicesandconvenience shops(StateofWesternAustralia 2005,4146).

Whenthesegeneralcentretypesareplottedagainst areasofbackgroundinfill,therewouldappeartobea

largeproportionofresidentialareaswhicharelargely devoidofsuchcentres(Figure7).Thiscanbeattributedtothedispersednatureofbackgroundinfillwhich doesnotresultinthedenselypopulatedurbanprecincts.AsDebraGoostrey,ExChiefExecutiveofthe WesternAustralianUrbanDevelopmentIndustry Associationexplained:

Whenyougetto(infilldevelopment)precincts,you cansuddenlyjustifyasmallbarandarestaurant,you havetohaveenoughpeopleinandaroundthatarea densitybringswithitthecoffeeeffect,thatgreat vibrancythatcomesthrough.[But]whenyou’vegot smalllittlebitsofdensity,youdon’tgetthecoffee shopeffect (inMoodieandTrigger 2015)

Inquantitativeterms – whiletheActivityCentre policydefines6250residentsperkm2 asadesirable

densitytosupportNeighbourhoodCentres(based onR25grossdensity)evenwithbackgroundinfill manyPerthlocalgovernmentareas(suchasthe CityofStirling)onlyachieveagrossresidentialof 2100peopleperkm 2 (AustralianBureauofStatistics 2013).Thus,whileplanningreportsconcerningcompactcitiesaresometimespromotedwithimagesof cafécultureandtheconvenienceoflocalshops,itis notclearthattheplanningwhichperpetuatesbackgroundinfillisactuallydeliveringthislifestyle. Beyondsuchpopulationdensitystumblingblocks, theplanningpoliciesthatproducebackgroundinfill donotenforcedevelopers tocontributetocultural amenitiesforlocalcommunities.

ThisisincontrasttocitiessuchasVancouver, whichusean ‘amenitybonusprogramme’,inwhich developersprovidepublicamenitycontributionsas

Figure7. CSRActivityCentreandgrowthcentrenetworkoverlaidwithbackgroundinfill.Whenthenetworkisplottedagainstareas ofbackgroundinfilltherewouldappeartobeasignificantproportionofdensifyingresidentialareaswhicharelargelydevoidof suchcentres.Thiscanbeattributedtothedispersednatureofbackgroundinfillwhichdoesnottendtoresultinthedenselypopulatedurbanprecinctsrequiredtosupportsignificantculturalandcommercialassets(GISdatacourtesyoftheWesternAustralian departmentofplanningandLandgate).

partoftheirurbandevelopmentproject(bothindollarsandintheformoflibraries,parks,childcareand communitycentres)partlytocompensateforthe impactsofhigherdensitydevelopmentontheexisting community(OECD 2012,120).Becauseofthesmall scale,dispersedandadhocnatureofbackgroundinfill inPerthsuchpolicieshavenotbeenpursued.

Accessibilitytopublictransport

BoththeEIUandtheWesternAustralianStateGovernmentdefineavitalcharacteristicofurbanliveability asbeingaccessibilitytopublictransport(WesternAustralianDepartmentofPlanning 2010,45;TheEconomistIntelligenceUnitLimited 2012).Thissentiment wouldappeartobesharedbyPerth’sresidents,with 71%ofrespondentstothe ‘TheHousingWe’dChoose’ surveyindicatingthatadwellingbeingnearpublic transportwasimportant(CurtinUniversityand HamesSharley 2013,19).

Despitethesepreferences,Perthremainsacar-centriccity.Indeed ‘overthepast40years,thenumberof carsinPerthhasgrownfasterthanthepopulationand itnowhasmorecarspercapitathananyotherAustraliancapitalcitywithsome83vehiclesper100people’ (DepartmentofPlanningandWesternAustralian PlanningCommission 2015,46).Reflectingthisin 2011,77%ofPerthresidentsdrovetowork.Ofthis group,9%drovealone.Onlyameagre4%travelled toworkeitherbycyclingorwalking(Departmentof PlanningandWesternAustralianPlanningCommission 2015,47).Inresponsetothissituation,Directions 2031emphasisestheneedtoencouragealternativesto cartravel,particularlyby ‘improvingtherelationship betweenlanduseandpublictransport andsupportingthecreationofneighbourhoodsandActivity Centresthatarebasedonwalking,cyclingandaccess toeffectivepublictransportservices’ (WesternAustralianDepartmentofPlanning 2010,55).Sotowhat degreeisthisaccessibilitytopublictransportprovided

Figure8. Trainstationsandtheir800mwalkablecatchmentsoverlaidwithbackgroundinfill.DuetoPerth’sradialraillinepattern, largeareasofbackgroundinfillarenotwithinwalkingdistanceoftrainstations(GISdatacourtesyLandgate).

inareasofbackgroundinfillacrossPerth’sinnerand middlesuburbs?

Perth’sheavyrailsystem,thebackboneofPerth’ s publictransportsystem,consistsoffivemajorrail linesradiatingfromthecitycentre.Muchofthebackgroundinfilldevelopmentthatisoccurringinmiddle ringsuburbsisinthesubstantialareasbetweenthe radiatingraillines.MappingofPerth’sexistingtrain stationsincombinationwithbackgroundinfilldevelopmentwhichhasoccurredtodaterevealsthatlittleofthe backgroundinfilliswithinashortwalkoftrainstations (Figure8) – inthismapshownasan800mor10minute walk.Thissituationisnotunusual – inSydneyandMelbournethehighestconcentrationofmedium – andeven high-densityhousingisofteninareasnotservedbyrail services(Troy 2004,122;Dodson 2010).

Duetothissituation,publictransportusersinthese backgroundinfillareasrelyonPerth’sbussystem whicheitherfeedsintotherailsystemoraccessesthe citycentredirectly(Figure9)showsbusstopswitha greaterfrequencythan10bussesanhourduringmorningpeakhour.Whilesignificantlymoreoftheareasof backgroundinfillareservicedbybusroutesthantrains, thebussystemtendsto ‘emphasisecoverage’ (i.e.short walkingdistancesandtheminimisationofbustransfers)atthecostofthe ‘frequencyandlegibilityofthe service’ (MeesandDodson 2011,18).Perhapsdueto suchissuesmappingoftheproportionofpeoplewho drive,oraredriven,toworkrevealsahighvehicular dependencyinsuburbswithalargeamountofbackgroundinfill,particularlyinthenorthernmostsection ofthemiddleringsuburbs(Figure10).

Figure9. CSRbusstopswithmorethan10servicesperhour(morningpeak)andtheir400mwalkablecatchmentsoverlaidwith backgroundinfill.Whilesignificantlymoreoftheareasofbackgroundinfillareservicedbybusroutesthantrains,thebussystem tendstoprioritisecoverageatthecostofthefrequencyandlegibilityoftheservice.Perhapsduetosuchissuesmappingofthe proportionofpeoplewhodrive,oraredriven,toworkrevealsahighvehiculardependencyinsuburbswithalargeamountof backgroundinfill(GISdatacourtesyLandgateandthePublicTransportAuthority).

Figure10. Proportionofworkerscommutingtoworkbycar(alone)overlaidwithbackgroundinfill.Backgroundinfilldevelopment appearstohaveachievedanegligibledecreaseincarusage(GISdatacourtesyofAustralianBureauofStatistics 2011 censusand Landgate).

Conclusion

Arguably,an ‘infillgood,sprawlbad’ polarity,has tendedtopervadeargumentsabouturbanformin Australia(Gleeson 2006,21),andthedeveloped worldmoregenerally(Bruegmann 2005).Incontradistinctionwewouldargue,infillintheformofbackgroundinfillisdeliveringmixedresultsinrespectto urbanliveability.Arguablythepublicopenspacesin thesedensifyingurbanareasarenotwelladaptedto theneedsofpeoplelivinginbackgroundinfill – a situationthatiscompoundedbydiminished,residual outdoorspaceandareductionurbanforestcover associatedwithmuchofPerth’sbackgroundinfill development.Furthermorebecauseoftheincrementalandadhocway,backgroundinfillisdelivered, itisnotproducingtheprecinctsofdenserurban formthatcansupportculturalandcommercialassets toanylargedegree.Finally,muchofthebackground

infillisnotwellconnectedtopublicrailtransport,a situationthatisreflectedinstubbornlyhighlevelsof carusageforcommutingtowork.

Implications

Theimplicationsofthissituationaretwofold.Firstly, oneoftheby-productsofsomeofthenegativeliveabilityaspectsofbackgroundinfillhasbeenanincreasing resistancebylocalcommunitiestoinfilldevelopment. AroundAustraliaonly11%ofcommunitiessupport infilldevelopment(Kelly,Breadon,andReichl 2011) – afiguremaybesubstantiallylowerinPerthgiven itsloweraveragedensitythancitiesontheEastCoast ofAustralia.Onereasonforthiscommunitysentiment isthattheadverseeffectsofbackgroundinfill(for exampletheclearingoftheurbanforest)have,to date,notbeingdirectlydealtwithinplanning.To

dealwithsuchpotentialadverseeffectsofinfill developmentpolicies,somecitiesincorporateminimisationpoliciesintotheirpolicies.Highprofileexamples includePortland’sgreeninfrastructureinitiativesfor re-establishingthehydrologiccycleandcombating urbanheatislands(OECD 2012,22).Ultimatelyif backgroundinfillcannotbedeliveredinawaythat enhancesthequalityoflifeofurbanresidents – such asitreputedlyisinPortland(OECD 2012,22) – itis likelytoworkagainstfutureattemptstoachieveinfill developmentinPerth.AstheOECDremindsuslively andliveableurbancentreshelptocontainthe ‘centrifugal’ powerofametropolitanarea(OECD 2012,23).

Secondly,iftheStateGovernmentisresoluteabout increasingurbanliveabilityinconjunctionwith urbandensificationthenalternativestrategiesare requiredwhichlessentheemphasisonbackground infill.Wherethesestrategiesarealreadyenshrined inpolicy(suchasActivityCentresandActivityCorridors)thenresearchisrequiredtounderstandwhy, fromaspatial,governance,andeconomicpointof view,thesepoliciesarenotdeliveringinfilldevelopmentdwellingsatahigherrate.Concomitantly,as backgroundinfillislikelytocontinue,further researchneedstobeconductedwhichexploreshow dispersedadhocinfilldevelopment,inPerth,can becoordinatedtoleveragegreaterliveabilityoutcomesforitsresidents(Duckworth-Smith 2015 ).

WithPerth ’ spopulationpredictedtoincreasedramaticallyoverthenext50years – from1.9topotentially6.6million(AustralianBureauofStatistics 2013 )theneedtodeliverhighperforminginfilldevelopmentisunlikelytoease – whilethispopulation growthrepresentsacreativityopportunitywhichis likelytobeunrepeated,ifitishandledpoorlyit couldbecalamitous.AsBrendanGleesonreminds us – ourcitiesmustbecometheurban ‘ lifeboats ’ whichwillenableustos ailthroughthecoming stormsofresourceshortagesandclimatechange (Gleeson 2010 ,131).Inshortdeliveringinfilldevelopmentinamannerthatimprovesurbanliveability willbeoneofthechallengesthatdefinesPerth ’ sviabilityinthiscentury.

Notes

1.Sincethetimeofwritingthisplanhasbeenreplaced bythedraftPerthandPeel@3.5milliondocument (DepartmentofPlanningandWesternAustralian PlanningCommission2015).

2.Despitetheirphilosophicalsimilarities, ‘NetworkCity’ and ‘Directions2031’ aredifferentiatedbyadropin theinfilldevelopmenttargetfrom60%to47%(HollingandHaslamMcKenzie 2010,280).

Disclosurestatement

Nopotentialconflictofinterestwasreportedbytheauthor.

Funding

TheimpetusforthispaperoriginatedfromaAustralian urbanDesignresearchCentrereportfundedbytheWestern AustralianPlanningCommission.

References Arvola,Anne,andKyostiPennanen. 2014 “Understanding Residents’ AttitudesTowardsInfillDevelopmentat FinnishUrbanSuburbs.” In WorldSB14Barcelona ,edited byUnknowneditor,1–10.Barcelona:WorldSB14 Barcelona.

AustralianBureauofStatistics. 2011. PopulationProjections, Australia,2012to2101.AustralianBureauofStatistics 2013.AccessedJanuary14,2011. http://www.abs.gov.au/ ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/3222.0main+features52012% 20(base)%20to%202101

AustralianBureauofStatistics. 2013 3218.0 – Regional PopulationGrowth,Australia, 2011–12.Australian BureauofStatistics2012.AccessedJune26. http://www. abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3218.0/ Bruegmann,Robert. 2005 Sprawl:ACompactHistory Chicago,IL:TheUniversityofChicagoPress. Brunner,Julie,andPaulCozens. 2013 “‘WhereHaveAllthe TreesGone?’ UrbanConsolidationandtheDemiseof UrbanVegetation:ACaseStudyfromWestern Australia.” PlanningPractice&Research 28(2):231–255. CentrefortheBuiltEnvironmentandHealth. 2013. Public OpenSpace(POS)GeographicInformationSystem(GIS) Layer.UniversityofWesternAustralia2013.Accessed November6. http://researchdata.ands.org.au/publicopen-space-pos-geographic-information-system-gislayer

CurtinUniversity,andHamesSharley. 2013 TheHousing We’dChoose:AStudyforPerthandPeel.Perth: DepartmentofHousing. DepartmentofPlanning,andWesternAustralianPlanning Commission. 2014 UrbanGrowthMonitor:Perth Metropolitan,PeelandGreaterBunburyRegions.Perth: WesternAustralianPlanningCommission. DepartmentofPlanning,andWesternAustralianPlanning Commission. 2015. DraftPerthandPeel@3.5Million. Perth:WesternAustralianPlanningCommission. Dodson,Jago. 2010. “IntheWrongPlaceattheWrong Time? AssessingSomePlanning,Transportand HousingMarketLimitstoUrbanConsolidation Policies.” UrbanPolicyandResearch 28(4):487–504. Dovey,Kim,andIanWoodcock. 2014 Intensifying Melbourne:Trasit-OrientatedUrbanDesignforResilient UrbanFutures.Melbourne:MelbourneSchoolof Design,TheUniversityofMelbourne. Duckworth-Smith,Anthony. 2015 “BackyardBonanza: ImprovingtheQualityof ‘Popular’ SuburbanInfill.” AustralianPlanner 52(4):297–313. Gleeson,Brendan. 2006 “WakingfromtheDream:Towards UrbanResilienceintheFaceofSuddenThreat.” Griffith UniversityUrbanResearchProgram. Gleeson,Brendan. 2010. LifeboatCities.Sydney:UNSW Press. Gray,Rowan,BrendanGleeson,andMatthewBurke. 2010. “UrbanConsolidation,HouseholdGreenhouse EmissionsandtheRoleofPlanning.” UrbanPolicyand Research 28(3):335–346. Hall,Tony. 2010 TheLifeandDeathoftheAustralian Backyard.CollingwoodVictoria:CSIROPublishing.

Holling,C.,andF.HaslamMcKenzie. 2010 “Integrated TransitOrientatedDevelopment:IsitAppropriatefor Perth?” In PlanningPerspectivesfromWesternAustralia: AReaderinTheoryandPractice,editedbyI.Alexander, S.Greive,andD.Hedgcock,274–288.Perth:Fremantle Press.

Kelly,J.-F.,P.Breadon,andJ.Reichl. 2011 Gettingthe HousingWeWant.Melbourne:GrattanInstitute. McCrea,Rod,andPeterWalters. 2012 “ImpactsofUrban ConsolidationonUrbanLiveability:Comparingan InnerandOuterSuburbinBrisbane,Australia.” Housing,TheoryandSociety 29(2):190–206. McManus,Phil. 2010 “PlanningWithandForTreesin Perth:Yesterday,TodayandTomorrow.” In Planning PerspectivesfromWesternAustralia:AReaderinTheory andPractice,editedbyI.Alexander,S.Greive,andD. Hedgcock,340–353.Perth:FremantlePress. Mees,Paul,andJagoDodson. 2011. “PublicTransport NetworkPlanninginAustralia:AssessingCurrent PracticeinAustralia’sFiveLargestCities.” Griffith UniversityUrbanResearchProgram 34:1–28. Moodie,Claire,andRebeccaTrigger. 2015 “PerthInfill Backlash:SuburbsFightingHigh-DensityDevelopment.” ABCNews2015.AccessedSeptember6. http://www.abc. net.au/news/2015-06-08/perth-infill-backlash-suburbsfighting-high-density-development/6521460?WT.ac= localnews_perth OECD. 2012 CompactCityPolicies:AComparative Assessment.OECDGreenGrowthStudies. Pandit,Ram,MaksymPolyakov,andRohanSadler. 2013 “ValuingPublicandPrivateUrbanTreeCanopy Cover.” Notyetpublished.

Searle,Glen. 2011 “UrbanConsolidationandthe InadequacyofLocalOpenSpaceProvisioninSydney.” UrbanPolicyandResearch 29(2):201–208. Seddon,George. 1994. “TheAustralianBackYard.” In AustralianPopularCulture,editedbyIanCraven,22–35.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. StateofWesternAustralia. 2005 StatePlanningPolicy4.2: ActivityCentresforPerthandPeel.Perth:Stateof WesternAustralia.

StateofWesternAustralia. 2010 StatePlanningPolicy3.1: ResidentialDesignCodes.Perth:StateofWesternAustralia. Swaffield,Simon,andElenDeming. 2011 “ResearchStrategies inLandscapeArchitecture:MappingtheTerrain.” Journal ofLandscapeArchitecture (Spring)6(1):34–45. Syme,Geoffrey,MarkFenton,andSheridanCoakes. 2001 “Lot Size,GardenSatisfactionandLocalParkandWetland Visitation.” LandscapeandUrbanPlanning 56:161–170. TheEconomistIntelligenceUnitLimited. 2012. BestCities RankingandReport:ASpecialReportfromthe EconomistIntelligenceUnit.London:TheEconomist. Thompson,Ian 2011 “TenTenetsandSixQuestionsfor LandscapeUrbanism.” LandscapeResearch 37(1):7–26. Troy,Patrick. 2004 “SavingOurCitieswithSuburbs.” In GriffithReview:DreamsofLand,editedbyJulianne Schultz,115–127.Brisbane:GriffithUniversity. WesternAustralianDepartmentofPlanning. 2010 Directions2031andBeyond:MetropolitanPlanning BeyondtheHorizon.Perth:DepartmentofPlanning. Wheeler,Tone. 2010 “GardenCitiesofTomorrow:Upside Down,InsideoutandBacktoFront.” In GriffithReview 29:ProsperorPerish,editedbyJulianneSchultz,46–56. Brisbane:GriffithUniversity.