2020_Transit Precincts for People Overcoming the barriers to successful TOD

This report has been commissioned by the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage in light of the new and upgraded station precincts and transport infrastructure being developed for METRONET. This research and subsequent report provide stakeholder insight into barriers to the success of past planning and design around transit in Perth.

This research has demonstrated a strong need to revisit tired debates and assumptions about who does and doesn’t want density or development, and to look at the next wave of proposed TODs in Perth through a more human scale, inclusive, community-minded lens, rather than ensuring retail anchors or apartment sales as indicators of success.

Transit precincts for people

© Australian Urban Design Research Centre 2020

ISBN: 978-0-6483070-4-4

Contents

Executive Summary | 6

Glossary | 10

1/ Introduction | 12

2/ Background |16

3/ Methodology | 34

4/ Barriers to successful TODs in Perth | 40

5/ Mitigation strategies and recommendations | 84

6/ Conclusion | 100

Appendix I | 104

Bibliography | 108

Contributors | 118

Executive summary

This report provides stakeholder insight

into barriers to the success of past planning and design around

transit in Perth.

Transit oriented development (TOD) is characterised by mixed use, compact, pedestrian-friendly precincts developed around transit stations. Perth’s policy and planning framework has expressly communicated the need for TODs as part of a more compact, sustainable city for at least two decades.

This report has been commissioned by the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage in light of the new and upgraded station precincts and transport infrastructure being developed for METRONET. This research and subsequent report provide stakeholder insight into barriers to the success of past planning and design around transit in Perth.

This study is based on in-depth interviews with 13 experienced TOD practitioners, including Local and State Government, industry, and community engagement stakeholders between 11 March 2019 and 16 April 2019. This group was selected to aggregate their extensive experience in the conceptualisation, development, and/ or implementation of TODs or activity centres in Perth.

• Transport infrastructure determining precinct design;

• Separation between proposed TOD and existing activity;

• Deficient precinct design;

• Attempting too many major redevelopment centres;

• Inadequate integrated public and Active transport options outside rail corridors;

• Not enough State government guidance to Local government;

• Lack of dwelling diversity;

• Lack of effective communication to explain trade-offs to increase community support for TOD densification.

In addition, participants offered their reflections and suggestions on how to mitigate these barriers through specific strategies. These are:

• Integrate station with surrounding precinct;

• Plan strategically for specific origins and destinations within transit network;

• Strengthen State government leadership and introduce ‘TOD Redevelopment Areas’;

• Diversify genuine active and public transport options;

• Attract critical mass of community into precinct;

• Communicate unique benefits and trade-offs of density;

This research has demonstrated a strong need to revisit tired debates and assumptions about who does and doesn’t want density or development, and to look at the next wave of proposed TODs in Perth through a more human scale, inclusive, community-minded lens, rather than ensuring retail anchors or apartment sales as indicators of success.

Living near a heavy rail transit station may require trade-offs around increased noise, activity, and smaller dwelling sizes, which weigh far more on residential choice than a fast trip to the CBD. It is for this reason that far more emphasis on fostering a genuine, bottom-up community and implementing design that facilitates multiple social interactions and contact throughout a day; a destination not just an origin for transit.

For this reason, it is urged that planners consider the ways in which transitoriented developments associated with METRONET learn from mistakes of the past, and focus on the everyday routines and embodied movements of those targeted to live in these precincts and use these transit stations.

To give people a reason beyond transit, beyond a fast commute to the CBD, will be imperative to the success of TODs in an already sprawled city such as Perth.

Transit oriented development (TOD)

A TOD is a sustainable community development approach that creates compact medium to high density mixed use precincts within easy walking distance of high quality public transport. It incorporates residential, employment, retail and recreational opportunities within a well considered, pedestrian focused urban environment (METRONET Station Precincts Design Guide 2019).

Precinct

Precincts are areas that require a high level of planning and design focus due to their complexity, whether this is due to mixed use components, higher levels of density, an activity centre designation or character, heritage and/or ecological value. The following general precinct types are identified:

• Activity centre (as defined by SPP 4.2 Activity Centres),

• Station precinct (land within and around train stations or major bus interchanges),

• Urban corridor (land located along transit corridors),

• Residential infill,

• Heritage precinct. (SPP7.2, p.2)

Station Precinct

The station precinct is the 400-500m core around a rail station, along with 800m-1000m transitional frame. The distances relate to a 5 minute walk for a wide range of daily trips in the core area and a 10 minute walking to train station

and back. The specific boundary of each precinct will be defined in subsequent planning for the precincts. (METRONET Station Precincts Design Guide 2019)

1/ Introduction

The success of the station precincts that are the core of the METRONET vision must cogently, strongly, and enduringly reflect the design principles and imperatives that will maximise their potential as true community places.

Transit oriented development (TOD) is characterised by mixed use, compact, pedestrian-friendly precincts developed around transit stations. These can be broadly categorised as new developments where the station is built before or at the same time as the surrounding land development, or developments where existing suburbs and stations are retrofitted to encourage and/or enable higher density infill, increased connectivity, and economic activation. Historically TODs have occurred organically, with land uses developing over time near transport hubs.

Currently, there is a prevalent trend globally to create TODs in areas that are still under-developed. In this context, TODs provide means to increase investment, density, and sustainable transport options for cities dealing with traffic congestion, pollution, and everexpanding urban footprints. In turn, such developments ideally can assist in diminishing the impact of environmental degradation and loss of habitat from land clearing on urban fringes. It is within this context that Perth – as with many Australian capital cities – has sought to implement numerous iterations of TOD and activity centre thinking in its planning and infrastructure policies, such as:

• The Stephenson-Hepburn 1955 strategic plan, which aimed to create a series of compact selfcontained communities that had all the elements required for daily life, including land for employment in close proximity to residential areas (Stephenson and Hepburn, 1955);

• The 1970s Corridor plan, which proposed an urban form of four corridors radiating from the Perth CBD with regional centres at the ends, with the intention of reducing congestion in Perth’s centre (Western Australia, 1970);

• The 1990s Metroplan which emphasised proximity to public transport routes for employmentgenerating activities and higher residential densities – while commercial and community facilities were to be discouraged away from the public network (Western Australia, 1990);

• The 2004 ‘Network City’ plan, which comprised an extensive Activity Centre network and cast Perth as a ‘connected city’ with higher densities around transport nodes and areas of employment (Western Australia, 2004);

This TOD philosophy was retained in Perth’s ‘Directions 2031’ (Department of Planning & Western Australian Planning Commission, 2015, p. 21), and in the current ‘Perth and Peel @3.5 million’ (Department of Planning & Western Australian Planning Commission, 2015), and policies relating to TOD and Activity Centres: State Planning Policy 4.2 Activity Centres, and Development Control Policy 1.6: Transit Oriented Development (Government of Western Australia, 2006, 2010). This focus on increasing development along the public transport network has therefore

been a continuing thread to Perth’s planning policies, and overall strategic vision for the city. However, as with other car-dependent cities (Curtis, 2012b, p. 276), Perth has struggled to deliver this typology in a sprawling city form, and a low density existing housing stock (Burton, 2017, p. 166; Goodman, 2017, p. 51; Goodman & Moloney, 2004, p. 49; Kelly & Donegan, 2015, p. 149; Randolph, Freestone, & Bunker, 2017, p. 91). Indeed, Australian cities have some of the lowest residential densities in the world – Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and Brisbane averaging only 15.7, 13.8, 12.1, 9.2 people per hectare respectively (Hurley, Taylor, & Dodson, 2017, p. 124). Use of public transport has declined despite repeated attempts to increase patronage (Figure 1). Despite the long-term application of TOD-driven Activity Centre policy, residential densities across most of Perth’s metropolitan station precincts remain typically low (Figure 2).

The current policy and implementation planning for METRONET, both in the upgrade and creation of new train stations and precincts, sits within this historical and policy context. METRONET is accompanied by a number of revised and new design documents that aim to address the spatial design of precincts more generally, and station precincts in particular, to make them more inviting, activated places to live, visit, and travel within: State Planning Policy 7.0 Design of the Built Environment, State Planning Policy 7.2 Precinct Design Guidelines, and State Planning Policy 7.3

Residential Design Codes – Apartments (Government of Western Australia, 2019a, 2019b, 2019c).

Importantly, precinct design has become prioritized within the policy framework; as the draft SPP7.2 Precincts Design Guide 2019 states: “Well-designed precincts … help enable the delivery of places that are accessible and welcoming to all, provide good transport connections and contribute to the overall social, economic and environmental well-being of our communities. Ensuring that precincts are well-designed will also enable the successful integration of higher-density development into our cities and towns, with carefully considered responses to areas with a mix of uses, an activity centre designation and / or specific character, heritage or environmental value. This will help create a diverse range of opportunities for living and working across the city and State.” (Government of Western Australia, 2019b, p28) To this end, the success of the station precincts that are the core of the METRONET vision must cogently, strongly, and enduringly reflect the design principles and imperatives that will maximise their potential as true community places. Reflecting on past developments and their missed opportunities, challenges, and successes provides government planners with vital knowledge to utilise in this context.

Figure 1: Transperth trains patronage (millions) 2009-2018

This graph reveals total boardings on Transperth train services (Armadale, Fremantle, Joondalup, Mandurah and Midland line) increased by 0.8 per cent (down 4.1 per cent in 2016-17). Data source: Public Transport Authority

2/ Background

A focus on increasing densities or transport without adequate attention to additional precinct design elements, dwelling diversity, or integration, is detrimental to the success of the precinct in the long term.

There has been a wealth of interdisciplinary literature exploring the elements of a successful transitoriented development, and the cultural, governance, economic, and contextual factors that are its barriers. It encompasses a wide range of intersecting areas, such as transit behaviour, planning, urban design, environmental science, economics, and human geography and mobilities studies. There has been much research on the governance and development issues around land amalgamation, lack of local government leadership, and inconsistencies with policy and planning procedures and regulatory frameworks (Curtis, 2012a, 2012b; Dittmar, Belzer, & Autler, 2004a; 2004b, p.10; Falconer & Richardson, 2010; Guthrie & Fan, 2016; Loukaitou-Sideris, 2010; Noland, Weiner, DiPetrillo & Kay, 2017; Schuetz, Giuliano, & Shin, 2017; Searle, Darchen, & Huston, 2014)

Beyond these issues, however, there are also factors that significantly determine whether a TOD typology is both viable and desirable to those who would use or live in these precincts. To this end, barriers such as a focus on increasing densities (Mees, 2014; Papa & Bertolini, 2015) or transport alone (Olaru & Curtis, 2015) without adequate attention to additional precinct design elements, dwelling diversity, or integration, are crucial in the success of the precinct in the long term.

Success factors

The literature identifies five key factors in the success of a transit oriented development precinct.

1. Transit options are desirable;

2. Transit offers access to numerous transit destinations;

3. Transit accommodates fine grain travel movement;

4. Residential options are desirable; and

5. Community support for change

Transit options are desirable

For a TOD to be a success, the transit at its centre also needs to be a preferable and realistic option: “sites will be those where the rail or rapid transit system is a genuinely competitive option to alternative modes” (Mees, 2014), “quality of transport infrastructure” (Olaru & Curtis, 2015), and key transit links, often high-speed bus, light or heavy rail (S. Kim, Park, & Lee, 2014). Mobility and accessibility are core tenets of a successful TOD. Importantly, these are equity issue regarding who has access, what resources are needed, and the time spent on transit taken from other activities such as social, community or other opportunities. To this end, “daily mobility becomes increasingly dependent on one’s ability to pay for either faster modes or well-located housing” (Sá, Edwards, Pereira, & Monteiro, 2019). The connections between positive public transport options and land use mix and increased pedestrian activity are well established

(S. Kim et al., 2014; Nieuwenhuijsen, 2016). However much research has focused on the ‘rational’ decisions prompting transit choice (cost, speed), “assuming that travelers make rational decisions to maximize their utility, mostly by minimizing travel time and costs (disutility), under given time and budget constraints” (S. Kim et al., 2014). While studies have focused on the ‘distance’ element of unwillingness of people to walk further to and from transit (Guerra, Cervero, & Tischler, 2012; Mulley, Ho, Hensher, & Rose, 2018; Mulley, Ma, Clifton, Yen, & Burke, 2016) this contrasts with research in other fields that details the ways in which experiences, perception, and spatial qualities determine choice to walk (Bell, Foley, Houghton, Maddrell, & Williams, 2018; Ettema et al., 2011; Middleton, 2011) the everyday routines and practices (Ettema, Garling, Olsson, & Friman, 2010) and the many other factors that influence decisions in everyday life around movement and mobility: the human experience “physical and nonphysical environments that affect the type of events experienced by travelers” (S. Kim et al., 2014). To this end, while a “TOD-positive attitude is captured by a preference for being able to walk to destinations” (Noland et al., 2017) distance to station is decidedly not the major consideration in whether people choose to use that transit; indeed “actual walk access is a fraction of calculations that focus on distances and street density”. (Woldeamanuel & Kent, 2016)

Dovey and Ristic (2015) argue that the unpredictability of transit “delays, weather, parking, as well as structural accessibility such as road surface, noise, cost and aesthetics” are significant.Research has found that what may be seen as ‘minor barriers’ are indeed psychologically and physically cumulative and can deter or make stressful a ‘normal’ commute: “if one link in the chain is missing, the whole chain fails.” (Wennberg, Hydén, & Ståhl, 2010) (Figure 3)

Here, then, mobility – the ability to move freely – and accessibility – the opportunity to travel to, and engage effectively with, a space – are more accurately considered within a context of “strong structural constraints” and not “free personal choice” (Hernandez, 2018) and broader limitations than preference (H. Kim, Kwon, Wu, & Sohn, 2014; Park, Kang, & Choi, 2014). In this regard, overlooked aspects of transit (lack of) choice are those relating to embodied mobility. This lack of control over transit, where public transport may be “infrequent or unreliable, difficult to access, or perceived unsafe”, and having “little choice but to use public transport they perceive as of unacceptable quality” can contribute to ongoing stress and impact on psychological health (Feng, Feng, & Astell-Burt, 2017). (Figure 4)

Safety is key to many people in these scenarios, and “hardest to quantify” (Singh, Lukman, Flacke, Zuidgeest, & Van Maarseveen, 2017). A feeling of safety (or lack thereof) can determine the success of the precinct and the use

frequency of the transit, both of which in turn are significant factors to residential choice. This includes safety getting to and from station – whether through streets, car parks, or underpasses – as well as safety at the transit station and on transit. For instance, the Public Transport Authority’s Passenger Satisfaction Monitor 2018 found that the number one issue that people (over 70% of men and women) had with feeling unsafe at bus/interchanges at night were threats from other people. In every other category women reported more feelings of lack of safety (Public Transport Authority, 2019). (Figure 5) Crucial to this is that urban planning is not gender neutral and can pay insufficient attention to factors such as distance, safety, and isolation in the design of urban spaces (Carpio-Pinedo, De Gregorio Hurtado, & Sánchez De Madariaga, 2019).

Finally, the continued requirement for extensive parking around stations –especially relevant at TODs – also conflicts with messaging around reduced car use, active travel, and compact development (Soria-Lara, Valenzuela-Montes, & Pinho, 2014) At-grade (surface) car parking adjacent to stations not only utilizes precious land near stations, but contributes to detrimental environmental outcomes such as storm water runoff and increased urban heat island effects from extensive asphalt (Taylor & van Bemmel-Misrachi, 2017). Parking availability has also been found to have a significant impact on choice of transport; more than “transit access,

highway access, or demographics” (Chatman, 2013). It also creates a literal spatial barrier whereby environmental exposure (such as heat, wind, and rain) is maximized, amplified by hostile (and often standardized) infrastructure of the station itself. Transit offers access to numerous transit destinations

Another key factor in TOD success is whether the transit is useful providing access to a wide range of destinations (Olaru & Curtis, 2015) - where transport efficiency is not confused with transport accessibility, and transport cannot be the sole attractor for development (Deboosere, El-Geneidy, & Levinson, 2018; Hernandez, 2018; Qviström, 2015). There is not an inherent connection between improvement of transit functionality and better precinct design, and indeed “‘Build it, and they will come!’ seems not to be a viable strategy on its own” (Guthrie & Fan, 2016). Rather, access to destinations can involve “moving individuals to the activities or ‘moving’ activities towards them” (Hernandez, 2018) whereby increased density is focused on existing connected neighbourhoods, and vice versa (Papa & Bertolini, 2015).

Perth’s heavy rail system, the backbone of Perth’s public transport system, consists of five major rail lines radiating from the city centre. Mapping of Perth’s existing train stations in combination with background infill development which has occurred to date reveals that little of the background infill is within a short walk of train stations – in this map shown as an 800m or 10-minute walk)

Figure 3: Station features most to least important

Safety, parking and accessibility are key considerations in the design of a train station for community members. Data courtesy of the 2018 Morley-Ellenbrook Line Community Survey of nearly 2000 respondents produced by METRONET.

integration with the local area

Features (1= most important 10 = least important)

Most Important

Least important

Figure 4: Importance ratings of service characteristics’: Train

Data courtesy of the 2017-2018 Passenger Satisfaction Monitor survey of 2200 public transport patrons via face-to-face interviews conducted by the Public Transport Authority.

The cleanliness on board

The cost of the fare

Personal safety on board the train

Personal safety at train station / Interchange

Cleanliness on board the train

The punctuality of the train service

Speed of the trip

Service frequency weekdays

The availability of seats on the train

Service frequency during peak times

The cleanliness of train stations

most important attributes

Figure 5: Reasons for feeling unsafe at bus station/ interchange

Over 70% of men and women reported feeling unsafe at bus/ interchanges at night due to threats from other people. Data courtesy of the 2017-2018 Passenger Satisfaction Monitor survey of 2200 public transport patrons via face-to-face interviews conducted by the Public Transport Authority.

Perceived threat/drunks/drug users/ general feeling of insecurity/strange people

Not enough security/guards/ cameras/inconsistent presence

Isolation/lack of people/on my own/ empty trains or stations

Some areas unsafe/certain suburbs

Darkness at night/insufficient lighting

Actual 'verbal' threat/harassed by people/ asked for money

Gangs/groups hanging around

Actual 'physical' threat/physical assalt/ was attacked

Males Females

(Bolleter, 2016). This lack of integration between land use and transport can also be found in areas that have options for active transport, but not appropriate cultural or retail infrastructure (shops, cafes, libraries) to encourage it (Olaru & Curtis, 2015). Indeed accessibility to transit limits the analysis of TOD effecacy, in that it neglects the further reach of the transport in providing access to other parts of the city. To this end, there are numerous calls for a move towards development and planning that is oriented towards accessibility not transit, per se (Deboosere et al., 2018; Qviström, 2015). This is reflected in the higher levels of car use outside of the City of Perth, where “6.1% of households in Perth Statistical Division had no motor vehicles, compared to 21.7% in the City of Perth”. (Ricciardi, Xia, & Currie, 2015).

To this end, as Papa and Bertolini (2015) emphasize, “TOD is the measure in which the whole urban area, not just a single neighbourhood, is oriented towards transit”, and that this relationship between the genuine connectivity between transit and density is key to successful TODs. Such success is challenged when the main public transport is geared toward single destinations. This factor is reflected by the dominance of public transport being used mostly in Perth for peak hour trips to and from the city centre, for work and educational purposes, but less than 34% for reasons and times outside of this (Ricciardi et al., 2015). For people to embrace TOD living, and make the

typology viable, the everyday experience of using that transit depends on being a genuine “alternative to the car for a full range of trips, not just those to the city centre” (Mees, 2014). Therefore, while ‘the commute’ is considered “a predictable and stable everyday practice… an arrangement based on an initial one-off rational evaluation of costs and benefits, which is then repeatedly performed in a routine, automatic manner” (Plyushteva & Schwanen, 2018) travel is a process highly contingent on structural, environmental, and personal factors that are inherently changeable. The ability to move with ease, therefore, between and to transit locations is crucial to this success, as “commuting is not simply a goal-driven movement from A to B, but a particular mode of inhabiting the city, replete with interactions, negotiations, frictions and emotions.” (Plyushteva, 2018)

Transit accommodates fine grain travel movement

Successful TODs are often described by the preferences for people to engage in the neighbourhood, and choose noncar-based travel. As Dovey and Symons (2013) explain, “In this scenario, the desire to drive is replaced by the desire to walk, shop, meet/greet, eat/drink and play within the neighbourhood. Interface adaptation is a long-term process that can assist in actualising the underlying potential for a vibrant public realm.”

However, barriers to the success of a TOD can also be due to the inadequacy

of the transport network to accommodate fine grain and spontaneous travel; “not adequately addressing the complexity and diffuseness of urban travel patterns” (Mees, 2014) as a genuinely multimodal public transport system” (Mees, 2014). (Figure 6) For instance, caregivers who arguably travel more in their everyday routines, whereby “[t]he daily life of those who need to combine care work and professional responsibilities – mainly women – is a neighbourhood issue” (Carpio-Pinedo et al., 2019) where regardless “you still have to get in a car to do everything, shopping, taking the kids to school” (Rice, 2016). To this end, for a truly successful TOD that does not just accommodate single destination travel, the integration of the central transit with the surrounding areas must be key (Deboosere et al., 2018; Jacobson & Forsyth, 2008; Thomas et al., 2018). Conversely, it can be very easy to move to many parts of the city, but not to the one a person needs to access, so that, despite their high level of mobility, accessibility remains low.” (Hernandez, 2018) Therefore, “the location of urban opportunities plays a significant role.” (Hernandez, 2018)

While the total distance driven, and, total number of car trips people are taking, in Australian cities are increasing more slowly than they did in previous decades, car use is still growing overall (Kelly & Donegan, 2015, p. 118).

Flexibility and convenience, combined with the existing structure of our major cities, mean private vehicles account

for close to 90% of passenger kilometres travelled. Even with substantial mode shift, driven by new investment or policy changes, private vehicles will likely remain a major contributor to urban mobility (Infrastructure Australia, 2018, p. 105). However, there are nuanced reasons to this. Laquidara (2018) argues that,

“Individuals with use of a car enjoy an ease of access to distant destinations that those without vehicles do not. This difference in accessibility is especially evident when making unanticipated trips, such as going to a grocery store to pick up a single item needed for a recipe, visiting an urgent care clinic, or responding to a family emergency.” The choice to drive therefore may be based on these spatial factors rather than on transit reasons alone.

Residential options are desirable

Research has demonstrated that housing choice is based upon many factors, of which travel preferences are only one (Chatman, 2013; Lin, Wang, & Guan, 2017; Lund, 2006; Næss, 2015), and not the most important (Cao & Pan, 2016; Cao, 2015b). Lack of affordability and dwelling diversity are significant factors, and residential mobility is impeded by income (De Vos, Ettema, & Witlox, 2019; Lin et al., 2017; Lin, Wang, & Zhou, 2018; Næss, 2015). Indeed, both residential and commercial development can raise dwelling prices, which can exclude the very people who could benefit most from proximity to public transport (Deboosere et al., 2018; Moos, Vinodrai, Revington, &

Figure 6: Reasons for driving rather than using bus services 2017-18

Data courtesy of the 2017-2018 Passenger Satisfaction

Monitor survey of 2200 public transport patrons via face-to-face interviews conducted by the Public Transport Authority.

Car is faster/saves time/more efficient/ avoid peak hour

Takes too long to catch bus and train/ not reliable/not punctual/connection issues

No bus services near where I live/buses too far away /too far to walk to the bus stop/no bus stop

Buses not frequent enough/infrequent service /inconvenient times/not enough peak services

Need car for other reasons/go elsewhere/shopping/drop kids off/carry heavy things/extra people in

More convenient/I'm lazy/driving is easier

Seasons, 2018).

The suburban home remains the preferred choice of families (Elliot, 2017, p. 105). Reflecting this only 4.8 percent of Australian families with children lived in a flat, unit, or apartment, and 5.8 percent lived in a townhouse or semidetached dwelling (Elliot, 2017, p. 105). However, this figure may only tell part of the story. Lack of affordability and diversity to cater for different family compositions, and lack of inviting precinct design for such diversity, is found to be far more important in this regard. Higher density living that incorporates the elements – such as human scale, inclusive semi-private green spaces, and integration within the precinct – that suburban living offers and current apartment living does not. This factor can also cloud research data that argues for preference for car travel, when in fact those who “prefer a lowdensity neighborhood may be a wish to live in a single-family house with a garden rather than a wish to pursue a car-oriented lifestyle.” (Wolday, Næss, & Cao, 2019) (Figure 7)

In other words, TODs may not be accessible to the very people who need or want to live in them the most (Wolday et al., 2019). For example, a 2015 study found that transport-disadvantaged residents who might need high quality transit the most – “high levels of no-car ownership, elderly residents, and low income” – in Perth suburbs such as Balcatta and Coobellup were overlooked in these types of transit developments” (Ricciardi et al., 2015). Further, the lack of access to many

newer transit stations have been connected to their increased spacing and lack of adequate compensatory bus services, in contrast with stations on the older ‘heritage’ lines.

This factor also shows up in the disconnect between housing choice and household compositions, as “[t] here are a large number of people that do not live in TOD areas who would prefer to do so” (Kamruzzaman, Baker, Washington, & Turrell, 2016). Many apartments are geared towards younger professionals, working in the CBD, with no children. By maintaining that presumption, demographics that may be far more in need of, and desire, proximity to public transport, are denied the opportunity. For example, families with children are mostly overlooked in both the provision of housing style (apartment size) and precinct design. While a compact, walkable precinct with good transit might indeed be preferred, the failure to accommodate finer grain elements such as a small private garden, and the issues of affordability, often make TODs inappropriate for families with (particularly school-aged) children leading to “re-location toward noncentral, mostly transit-poor parts of the metropolitan area” (Wolday et al., 2019).

Community support for change

Dovey and Symons (2013) argue that “density is about volumes of people, jobs, floor space and buildings” whereas “[i]ntensity is an emergent effect of the connections, alliances,

interactions and differences between the people, practices and built forms that comprise the city”. This distinction is vital as the “accessibility/density/ urbanity triumvirate has led to an exclusive urban focus” (Qviström, 2015). In particular, in Perth, the common perception of antidevelopment community members is that they want development, but elsewhere: the so-called NIMBY (Not In My Backyard); “the ‘density-isnecessary’ lobby vs. the ‘densitydestroys-character’ lobby” (Dovey, Pike, & Woodcock, 2016; Dovey & Wood, 2014). However, opponents of high-rise infill should not be assumed to be opposed to transit accessibility (Legacy, Curtis, & Scheurer, 2017) or that lack of desire to live near heavy rail is indicative of general antipathy towards living close to transit. Other considerations may be noise related (Renne, 2005); for instance rail noise has been found to have numerous detrimental psychological and physiological effects, indicating a justifiable reluctance that some might have to living close to a rail line (Brown & van Kamp, 2017; Tassi et al., 2013).

These barriers, therefore, indicate that failure to create great transit-based precincts is a result of a neglect of embodied, lived experiences of potential travellers, residents, and visitors – with diverse needs for safety, mobility, access, and motivation. Inattention to the fine-grained ways in which people navigate their daily routines, and the factors which determine their choices of movement,

will ultimately lead to poor uptake of TODs no matter the efficiency, cost, or proximity.

Figure 7: What do you love about your community? 2018

Connections and closeness to key locations and amenities is highly valued by community members. Green spaces, a sense of community and a quite lifestyle are also important. Data courtesy of the 2018 Morley-Ellenbrook Line Community Survey of nearly 2000 respondents produced by METRONET.

Good parks/green spaces nearby

Good sense of community

Lifestyle is pleasant and quiet

located centrally

close to recreation/leisure/shops

close to public transport

close to the city

close to the Swan Valley

Good location

good access to main roads/highways

family friendly community

close to medical centre/dentist

open spaces/rural feel

close to the airport

new area/developments

What do you value

value most about the area you live in?

3/ Methodology

Thirteen participants were interviewed, with extensive experience in the delivery or conceptualisation, planning and/or design of activity centres relating to transit in Perth

Given the challenges posed and lack of successful examples of TODs in Perth the research questions that drive this project are:

• What are the barriers to delivering successful transit-oriented developments in Perth?

• What strategies can government planners employ to mitigate these barriers to create successful transit-oriented developments?

As best to explore these questions, the research methodology chosen focused on non-random sampling, which is commonly applied when qualitative methods (e.g. focus groups and interviews) are used to collect data and for exploratory work. Non-random/ purposive sampling deliberately targets individuals within a population, whereby a specific population is identified and only its members are included in the survey (Kelley, Clark, Brown, & Sitzia,

2003, p. 264).

It has been argued that “fine grained, spatially explicit types of analyses that have been lacking in TOD” (Schlossberg & Brown, 2004) and to this end this research sought to explore the barriers, missed opportunities, and successes that stakeholders have experienced in Perth.

This study is based on in-depth interviews with 13 experienced TOD practitioners, including Local and State Government, industry, and community engagement stakeholders between 11 March 2019 and 16 April 2019. This group was selected to aggregate their extensive experience in the conceptualisation, development, and/ or implementation of TODs or activity centres in Perth. These interviewees often had cross-sector professional experience (i.e., a Land Developer who has worked for the State government; a Transport Professional who has led

Figure 8: Participant backgrounds

precinct development). (Figure 8)

The breakdown of interviews consisted of:

• Three Transport Professionals;

• Three Land Developers;

• Three Design Professionals;

• Two State Government Planners;

• One Local Government Planner;

• One Community Consultation Professional; and

• One Community group member.

Human Ethics approval was granted from the University of Western Australia Human Research Ethics Committee (RA/4/20/5225).

Each interview lasted between 30 and 60 minutes, and all were in person except for one phone interview. All interviews were one on one, and audio recorded, with the participants’ permission.

Interviews were adapted to respond to conversation and to the participant’s particular professional background. The resulting data set formed over 10 hours of interviews. These were transcribed verbatim, yielding almost 100,000 words of transcribed interview data.

The interview transcripts were then subject to manual textual and interpretative analysis to identify key themes, using both overall word/phrase searches, but also close reading that found similarities and differences in

perspectives.

All identifying information regarding participants and specific projects were removed, with our aim to extract themes from the responses. Responses have been edited for clarity. Finally, these findings were compared to current and future policy documents in offering context for the mitigating strategies suggested by interviewees.

(Figure 9)

Review literature and current delivery of activity centres in Perth

Develop interview questions, obtain ethics approval, engage stakeholders

Interview stakeholders

Transport Professionals

N=3

State and local government

N=3

Literature review, mapping, data review

Interview preparation

Design Professionals

N=2

Land Developers

N=3

Community Consultation Professional/ member

N=2

Analysis of interview data

Interview transcripts created

Use findings for policy/site analysis and strategies

Publish report; share findings

Initial analysis and matrix

Policy and site review

Publish report

In-depth thematic and interpretative analysis

In-depth thematic and interpretative analysis

4/ The barriers to successful TODs in Perth

The interviewees identified 8 main areas that are acting as barriers to the success of TODs in Perth that all contribute to spatial and design outcomes

Interview Findings

The interviewees identified 8 main areas that are acting as barriers to the success of TODs in Perth that all contribute to spatial and design outcomes. Transport infrastructure determining precinct design;

• Separation between proposed TOD and existing activity;

• Deficient precinct design;

• Attempting too many major redevelopment centres;

• Inadequate integrated public and active transport options outside rail corridors;

• Not enough State government guidance to Local government;

• Lack of dwelling diversity;

• Lack of effective communication to explain trade-offs to increase community support for TOD densification.

Dominant barriers to successful TODs in Perth

This graph identifies the dominant barriers to successful TODs identified by our interviewees.

(Source: interviews)

Transport infrastructure determining precinct design

Separation between proposed TOD and existing activity

Not enough State government guidance to Local government

Deficient precinct design

Attempting too many major redevelopment centres

Inadequate integrated public and active transport options outside rail corridors

Lack of dwelling diversity

Lack of effective communication to explain trade-offs to increase community support for TOD densification

Transport infrastructure determining precinct design

A recurring theme throughout many of the interviews was a frustration with the dominance of transport agencies and infrastructure priorities – such as transport speed (Transport Professional 1) – over the location and design of stations and precincts.

Firstly, this frustration was felt with regards to the perceived formulaic, inflexible approach to transport movement and the agencies control over design outcomes; for instance,

“I think this brings us to the real barriers… of TOD, and that is you’re dealing with PTA and Main Roads WA. In addition, they are essentially immovable for any discussion about doing different materiality, doing pelican crossings for pedestrians, doing any of the other things you might like to see to enhance connectivity…It was very clear you don’t stand a hope in hell in terms of their standardized approach to roads, road speeds, urban design, pedestrian crossings, all those issues.” (Land Developer 2)

The predominance of transport infrastructure over creating a ‘place’ was echoed by other interviewees; as a Local Government Planner explained, “If you’re talking about the movement network, there’s a number of things outside our control, so Main Roads have control over the signals and we have to get permission for reducing speeds. In terms of the actual interface with the station, then we’re reliant on PTA’s plans.” (Local Government

Planner 1) Another emphasised that, “Ultimately agencies … have particular mandates and the idea of specialization there’s nothing particularly wrong with that. But when that specialization is at the expense of coordination, that’s when you start having real problems.” (Transport Professional 2)

The impact of these controls on station design (including the interface between station and precinct) was also cited; especially problematic after designs of stations and precincts have been developed. As one interviewee stated, “they [government] will come back and tell us that there are all sorts of concerns that the bus people [PTA] have. It seems like the bus people rule – I’m learning that.” (Community group member). Others commented on the space requirements that conflict with good place design: for instance, the width of spaces needed for bus turns and stopping (Land Developer 3, Design Professional 2).

Such operational focus was perceived as contradicting the qualities needed to be a ‘great place’, as “it needs the station to be more than just a connector between bus train and ticket machine… They want to …. make it all about platforms and shunting rail and ticket machines” (Land Developer 2).

Most interviewees also commented on the ownership over government land on road and rail reserves being dominated – and “over-engineered” (Local Government Planner 1) by the interests of transport agencies such as Main Roads or PTA. This dominance was

11: Transport infrastructure determining precinct design

Interviewees expressed frustration with the dominance of transport agencies and infrastructure priorities –such as transport speed – over the location and design of stations and precincts.

Figure

expressly noted with regards to the continued requirements of parking on prime land around station, whereby “We have a sea of car parking, so if you drive a car, you actually get better access to the station than if you walk.” (Land Developer 3) As one interviewee commented,

“I think, a huge problem is, the current regulations demand certain parking ratios, and so all these apartments are having to provide 1.25 or whatever it is, … it… kind of defeats the purpose of having all these apartments around train stations.” (Land Developer 1)

While parking at station was largely perceived negatively in terms of planning and design outcomes, some interviewees acknowledged the benefits. One Transport Professional explained that, “Even if they’re driving to the station, at least they’re using public transport for part of their journey, which is half the battle. Otherwise, they’ll jump on the freeways.”(Transport Professional 3).

Another interviewee argued we should be trying to devise better solutions; the possibility that “we can create places where you can drive and park, but not be in an empty concrete sea that goes on forever.” (Land Developer 2)

The significant amount dedicated to parking was raised in relation to a number of connected issues, such as: the standard practice of at-grade parking rather than multi-storey (Land Developer 2), the conflicting outcomes that at-grade park and ride has for good planning outcomes (Transport

Professional 1), and the way that inaccurate traffic modelling has a flowon effect to these design decisions. As one interviewee stated, there is an “assumption that everything in future will continue to be as it’s been in the past.” (Transport Professional 2))

These myriad elements reflecting the decision-making dominance of transport agencies and their fixed requirements for infrastructure were perceived as the single biggest barrier to creating the kind of precincts in win which people wanted to travel, live or visit.

Government land on road and rail reserves is dominated – and “over-engineered” by the interests of transport agencies ie. The continued requirements of parking on prime land around station Image source: Google Earth

Figure 12: Aerial of Cockburn Central station

Figure 13: Cockburn Central Station

The predominance of transport infrastructure over creating a ‘place’ (including design of the interface between station and precinct) was echoed by interviewees. Bus stops at Cockburn central station with limited protection from elements. Image source: Author

Separation between proposed TOD and existing activity

The second barrier identified as significant to the success of TOD in Perth is the placement of rail station itself. Many interviewees (69%) viewed past and proposed station location choice as ‘missed opportunities’ whereby a station was not optimally placed to integrate with existing activity, density, or need.

Firstly, choice of rail station locations based upon PTA cost and operational requirements were seen as the single largest barrier in creating good planning and design outcomes. As one Land Developer commented,

“Well I have to say the PTA seems to have worked out where the new stations are going, and they’re not necessarily in the best planning locations … I think the PTA is very good at taking control of these things and then delivering a station then trying to make the land use work around it, rather than the other way around. Just because you want it to happen, doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.” (Land Developer 3)

Examples of this barrier were given in relation to a number of past projects, such as Cockburn Central, separated from the shopping centre - “It would’ve been better if it was better integrated with the shopping centre” (Land Developer 2) – and isolated by large roads. As one State Government Planner reflected, “it could have been slightly further south and connecting to the shopping centre. Yeah, that decision ... they did the best they could in that

context where you’ve got a big box over the road, you’ve got a massive big dividing arterial going through the middle.” (State Government Planner 2) Furthermore, as one Transport Professional remarked about the site,

“it’s very hard to get the outcomes you’d like in these sort of things in terms of residential, commercial developments when you’ve got such a hostile environment for a major freeway.” (Transport Professional 1)

Similar sentiments were expressed with regard to not connecting Rockingham and Mandurah to their existing town centres, for instance, “I think Rockingham is just stuck in the middle nowhere” (Transport Professional 1), and the creation of transit stops in inhospitable locations. As one Design Professional stated,

“Why the heck would I try to take the train to Glendalough? There is nothing to do there. I’m just dropped in the middle of a freeway with some light industrial, on each side. That doesn’t work.” (Design Professional 2)

This detrimental disconnect was also highlighted with regards to the location of stations within freeway reserves. While the rhetoric of ‘pedestrians first’ predominates discussions of TOD, many interviewees lamented the physical and spatial barriers to this in practice, such as long waiting times at intersections (Transport Professional 3) and the presence of speeding cars making stations unpleasant (Land Developer 2).

Figure 14: Separation between proposed TOD and existing activity

Many interviewees (69%) viewed past and proposed station location choice as ‘missed opportunities’ whereby a station was not optimally placed to integrate with existing activity, density, or need.

Finally, although Subiaco was largely seen as meeting the criteria for TOD success (with regards to creating a compact commercial and residential precinct based on transit), it was also considered an example of focusing on the station placement rather than how it connects to existing amenity:

“It becomes a parasite within the town centre... the planning components could say ‘yes, see how successful we have been in our TOD but don’t look beyond the boundaries...’ The disjointment (sic) of the TOD with a Rokeby road as a town centre precinct is purely because the pedestrian network isn’t connected and that’s really on a smallscale level.” (Design Professional 2)

This sentiment was echoed by concerns about Bayswater, and the possibilities of a station further segregating the town precinct, rather than bringing new life to it (Community Group Member).

These reflections were strongly linked to concerns with proposed stations and their precincts, and barriers to their success and activation. As one State Government Planner stated,

“So it’s more, what things do you put more closely together to get the right amount of energy happening? …if this a strategic regional centre then you want some strategic things in it…” (State Government Planner 2)

This need for appropriate existing commercial activity was echoed by others:

“Locating the station and the activity centre in a place that makes sense, just

in the broader framework about, Is this the best place to put a centre? What’s the local economy doing if we want to put denser product in there? Will it actually work in that market situation? … And therefore, if your density may not come for 20 years or beyond, what do you do with your core in the meantime?” (State Government Planner 1)

In this context, the proposed Morley train station was identified specifically, with interviewees drawing attention to its distance from the established commercial and residential areas.

“Morley’s got a huge catchment area. …Morley’s not close to that line. They argue it is, but you look at it – it’s quite a way. That’s a very large area, and it’s not well serviced by public transport… That worries me a little bit because I think Morley, it will be lost opportunity, a bit like Rockingham, but even more so because Morley is a very, very, very large central area of Perth, and it’s got a large shopping centre. It’s got large activities around it.” (Transport Professional 1)

This was echoed by a Local Government Planner, saying

“The missed opportunity in our region now is going to be with what they do with the Morley-Ellenbrook line which doesn’t go into Morley. … and then just have it running up the middle of a freeway … as opposed to doing a longer-term plan, tunnelling through from the city…. We’ve got the density zone there. We’ve got unlimited heights, plot ratios, in the core. Morley could

take off but it needs a train station, both from the jobs component and the residential component. So that would take off overnight if they put a train line through there. I know there’s extra cost in that but that’s a big opportunity to integrate what’s already there in terms of land use, and what could occur with a transport solution.” (Local Government Planner 1 )

Town centre

The disconnection between Mandurah train station and the existing town centre can be seen in the aerial photograph above. Image source: Nearmaps

Station

Figure 15: Mandurah train station and town centre

Deficient precinct design

A significant barrier mentioned by almost all interviewees in various forms, was the deficiency of transit precincts themselves. This was in relation to different intersecting factors:, interest and amenity, safety, and/or exposure to the elements, and the lack of compelling interface between the station and surrounding urban fabric to make it a genuinely inviting space. As one interviewee noted, a transit precinct is not“just the quickness of how you connect the bus to the train to the ticket machine.” (Land Developer 2) This barrier was summed up as a query about creating places: “how do you make these really dynamic and interesting? Exciting places attract us, really attract us. How do you make this a space where people want to go to?” (Community Consultation Professional). For some, the quality of spaces was a huge barrier to a successful TOD:

“the public realm in most of our activity centres is appalling. The paving’s not consistent, there’s no street trees, the street furniture’s inconsistent. That’s what people see, it’s that really fine grain, and we don’t do beautiful places. We do functional places very well, cause we’re a town of engineers, but we don’t do beautiful. So, for me, what makes stations precincts work is really well detailed street-level design.” (Land Developer 3)

There was also emphasis on the lack of creativity in delivering diverse spaces to visit within the precinct, as ensuring those details could be an impediment

to fast implementation of station infrastructure. As one Land Developer stated,

“So good design, context analysis, precinct design becomes a barrier to meeting the deadlines. If you are having to deal with a unique set of circumstances around trees and heritage and other things that make a particular place special and charming, then that’s going to cost more.” (Land Developer 2)

However, prioritising these elements would offer an interesting series of experiences; as one Design Professional stated, “you start to create loops that are exciting to walk and to discover and do a different one this way, instead of always just doing ‘up and down well I’ve done that five times, I don’t need to come back’.” (Design Professional 2)

These barriers to attracting transit users, residents, and visitors, also were exemplified in observations about a lack of attention to exposure to environmental elements such as heat, rain, and wind. For example,

“[I]f there is distance… if it’s a bland, hot, barren, ugly transition in that distance, then that is deadly… At least let’s make sure that we finish it off and make it really, really nice holistically as a design piece so that people – the minute they get off – they’re intrigued, and they’re delighted, and they are enjoying it.” (Land Developer 2)

This barrier relates to different aspects of an individual’s movements through a TOD: waiting at a station, travelling

16: Deficient precinct design

A significant barrier mentioned by almost all interviewees in various forms, was the deficiency of transit precincts in relation to different intersecting factors including but not limited to interest and amenity, safety, and/or exposure to the elements.

Figure

between the station and surrounding areas, and through the precinct itself. This exposure can be experienced as being “in this wasteland of tarmac… where pedestrians actually have to wait a horrifying long time in the burning sun …[Y]ou can say, ‘that’s not the masterplan or that’s not the TOD development’ but it is because if the TOD development doesn’t take pedestrian serious[ly] then it doesn’t do its job well.” (Design Professional 2)

Another interviewee commented,

“I mean if you want me to catch the train, I’m walking home from the station in summer at five o’clock, and it’s still 30 degrees. Where’s the shade? … Where is the safe footpath? If I’m pushing a pram, where are the crossovers?” (Land Developer 3) This (dis)incentive to walk to an existing or proposed station was felt to be a contradiction to the goals of creating successful TODs, and one often overlooked.

17: McIver Station walkway

Long, linear, uncovered and univiting access to McIver Station. Barriers to attracting transit users, residents, and visitors, were exemplified in observations about a lack of attention to exposure to environmental elements such as heat, rain, and

Figure

Aesthetics were also considered important in designing spaces that people wanted to be in.

“I just say make them beautiful... You know, we don’t have trees, there’s nothing beautiful.” (Land Developer 3) Another stated:

“So they are often very big unattractive sheds with gantry walkways that are just massive trusses that are spanning a freeway. So, it’s very difficult to get scale and character. It’s very difficult to improve the user experience when you’re interacting with that kind of architecture and the absolute lack of a precinct.” (Land Developer 2)

This concern was reiterated by interviewees who saw TODs offering ”having a unique character to that town centre as well, so it’s not just rolling out the same thing, what is unique and maintaining that.” (Local Government Planner 1) Indeed, paying attention to context and allowing for differences was highlighted as a way to “centre the human experience” (Design Professional 2), as “you don’t want to copy the same thing over and over…then you have nothing because it’s all the same, so why would I move from train station A to train station B if they’re all the same?” or the creation of “ugly high rise and that’s as far as it goes” (Community Consultation Professional).

Another barrier to success of TODs was a failure to address distance, isolation, and lack of activation in the design of stations, interfaces, and precincts, resulting in unsafe

environments. Such factors were expressed as being commonly overlooked but significant, reasons in choosing not to live near or use transit. Expressing the reasons behind this, two of the Land Developers commented on the ways in which design and planning in TODs often overlooks the lived experiences of people after dark or in isolated areas near stations:

“Most of the people that do station planning are men. They have no idea what it’s like to be female and to actually try to walk through a place where you’re going, ‘Where’s the streetlight? Can I see?’… It is a serious issue. I’ve stood at Warwick station, waiting to be picked up, and I’ve had men yell abuse at me out of their car windows at eight o’clock at night. And there was a security guard standing there who did nothing…Like on a Friday, you know you might stay behind and have a couple of drinks after work, and then you think, ‘Okay, that’s good. Then what do I do?’, so then it’s 7:30 and I’ve gotta get here and that’s dark. So yeah, there’s a whole lot of other things, and I think it’s very age and gender specific. And often you’re told to get over it. You know, ‘you’re imagining it’. But unfortunately, what’s been proven is that no, we’re not imagining it.” (Land Developer 3)

“So, I think [safety] something that preoccupies women almost daily. If you’ve got children and if you’ve got teenagers and they’re often on public transport and they’re getting independent. But if you know they’re going to be late and they’ve been getting off somewhere that you do feel

there is a long, unactivated walk, then there’s no way you won’t go and pick them up by car because you can’t take the risk that something will happen to them. So, safety is paramount……I think if you’ve made your life incredibly difficult by putting a shed in the middle of a freeway, then it’s going to ... It’s near to impossible to make it safe… you’re behind the eight ball if you haven’t located the station in a place where you can even move towards that resolution. And sticking a shed in the middle of the freeway, it’s an impossible problem to solve in terms of safety.” (Land Developer 2).

These factors are therefore vital to the use and preference for both transit and precinct. Inattention to the fine grain design and experiential features of the area creates a significant barrier to its overall success.

Figure 18: Cockburn Central station precinct

Uncovered and uninviting seating at Cockburn Central station. Barriers to attracting transit users, residents, and visitors, were exemplified in observations about a lack of attention to exposure to environmental elements such as heat, rain, and wind.

Attempting too many major centres

Another barrier identified by numerous interviewees (61%) was the drive to achieve too many strategic centres in Perth. This was emphasised from interviewees from all sectors, who felt it diluted resources, and failed to acknowledge the lack of sustained population growth to make them work. As one State Government Planner stated, “It is really going, ‘which x, y and z strategic centres or other sub centres do we want to invest time in over the next five years?’” ((State Government Planner 2)

The failure to be selective in this manner was echoed by all Transport Professionals interviewed; as one explained,

“I feel at the moment that we’re trying to do that in too many places. So, it’s actually eroding what we can do in any one place. Every major centre is seen as a huge activity centre, but the Government can’t afford to underground rail everywhere, and build all the infrastructure that’s needed everywhere in the horizon that we’re looking at.”

(Transport Professional 3)

Another voiced:

“I think that’s because we’ve never had the courage to tell some of these people that …a little shit hole like Perth, in the total scheme of things, have got 10 regional strategic metropolitan centres. W]hat are we playing around for just trying to make everybody feel good when nothing’s going to happen? Or not the things we want to see happen?”

(Transport Professional 1)

This barrier was further augmented by the tendency to ignore context in which these precincts would be located, where

“if we were to say we’ve got half a dozen strategic precincts or train station areas or whatever, irrespective of where they sit almost within the metropolitan fabric. So, you know they’re five ks from the CBD or they’re 15 or they’re 25, we can develop it all simultaneously and the development industry will want to deliver fairly unprecedented density for Perth at least in each of these precincts. That’s not the way the market works. And they will not all be successful.”

(Transport Professional 2)

By attempting to develop numerous places as sustaining ongoing retail, commercial, and residential growth at once, there is the potential for creating under-developed dormitory suburbs that would remain reliant on the CBD for employment.

To this end, a more strategic focus on the specific hubs that could genuinely become both origin and destination would streamline resources, be more likely to attract a critical mass of residents, and maintain or create precinct identity that was distinct from others potentially rolled out en masse.

Figure 19: Attempting too many major centres

61% of interviewees identified the drive to achieve too many strategic centres in Perth as a dominant barrier.

Inadequate integrated public and active transport options outside rail corridors

While successful TOD is often linked to a decrease in car use and the ability to access useful public transit, almost two thirds of interviewees (61%) stressed that the current transport network was inadequate to meet people’s actual everyday travel needs; as one put it,

“We’re putting a hell of a lot of money into these and the rail network, but actually, what we need is an integrated transport strategy that looks at how you can get around.” (Land Developer 1)

The focus on the CBD as the main public transport destination was also raised as a key concern in this regard; as one Transport Professional stated,

“I think it’s unrealistic for people to be living out in Yanchep and to not have a car. You hope that they can minimize use of the car, and maybe not buy the second and the third car. Because, for x number of journeys they can rely on the public transport network. But unless you’re going to the CBD, or along those linear corridors, if you’re deviating, it’s still got a way to go” (Transport Professional 3).

Or as another interviewee explained, “You have a centre or hub around Perth and you have spirals going out and there’s no connections between the spirals … who the heck is going to take the train from Fremantle to Joondalup?”

(Design Professional 2) This unidirectional transit was viewed as indicative of an overall lack of robust

places with genuine employment, educational, and cultural assets. For instance,

“Dormitory suburbs, people come in the morning. The train’s going up one way. Now they come in, do the same, reverse in the afternoon. Places like Fremantle have all day traffic both ways. Now that’s obviously what we want. Why does that happen? Because you’ve got sort of the whole concept of origin, destination, both centres. So you look at WA, Perth, and you don’t see many of them, do you? … But just to sort of think high density residential total answer, it’s not certainly in terms of how we want our whole transport system to work.” (Transport Professional 1)

This sentiment was echoed by others, who saw the building of density around specific transport hubs very limited in usefulness, as

“that only works if you have a really mature well developed public transport network and Perth doesn’t classify for that” (Design Professional 2) The imperative to look at more fine-grain transit options was repeatedly emphasised, such as “bicycle or footpath links and that sort of ribbon of commercial leading up to [the station]” (Local Government Planner 1).

A focus on moving beyond heavy rail was seen as vital:

“What is that next tier of public transport? …. That’s when I think we’ll start to see the car dependency in the city go down. And I don’t think that comes from just being, focusing huge

Figure 20: Inadequate integrated public and active transport options outside rail network

Two thirds of interviewees (61%) stressed that the current transport network was inadequate to meet people’s actual everyday travel needs.

amounts of development around one node” (Transport Professional 3).

Finally, a focus on the CBD was also cited as ignoring the possible future of employment being more diffuse, and not requiring a static city location for residence or main transit.

As one Land Developer stated, “I mean, economically, it’s smart to locate near the maximum number of jobs – not necessarily yours, but it’s where most of the jobs are. Which is why people would prefer to live in Leederville rather than in Yanchep.”.” (Land Developer 3)

A shift to a decentralised and diffuse transport network that reflects the future trends of employment as well as current real-life needs of potential users and residents is therefore crucial to the success of a TOD

The focus on the CBD as the main public transport destination was raised as a key concern, ignoring the possible future of employment being more diffuse, and not requiring a static city location for residence or main transit.

Figure 21: CBD as main destination

Exposed and uninviting bike and walking path by

Figure 22: Walking and bike path alongside Leederville Station

Leederville train station

Not enough State government design guidance to Local government

Interviewees largely agreed that the relationship of State government, local government, and developers, needed more intervention and oversight to streamline processes and to ensure a holistic design. There were differences in the level of local government scope that should be involved.

Some interviewees had little faith in the ability of local government to deliver substantial TOD projects. “If you want to build TODs, keep [local government] out of it. They don’t have the ability or professional skills to get there.” (Design Professional 1) To this end, many believed that the State government had a larger role to play in this design and planning oversight: “You need someone that can coordinate, organize, bring a whole government attitude towards it and have the authority to make those decisions because it just doesn’t happen.” (Design Professional 1)

Inconsistencies, local politics, and lack of resourcing at a local level were seen as barriers where State government assistance could greatly benefit such projects, as “frankly local government’s a mixed bag” (Transport Professional 2), where “we can’t get two councils to agree on anything in Perth…. we fight to death, and we argue, and we never have a sort of an agreed vision which people sign off to” (Transport Professional 1).

Specifically, entities like Landcorp and MRA were praised for their role in these

kinds of large scale developments, as “a lot of local government doesn’t have a long-term vision about where they’re going. so that’s why I think the State’s almost got to play more of an assisting role.” (Land Developer 3). However, as one State Government Planner expressed,

“you don’t need MRA everywhere. Or ‘an’ MRA. …It requires a State to be involved in that but not everyone needs a State agency …. At one level it’s just supporting local authorities and helping them get skilled up, another level it’s giving them the machinery …the capacity to do it by having an entity.” (State Government Planner 2)

This leadership was particularly mentioned with regards to design and planning guidance on how to deliver context-appropriate infill, which was viewed as a leadership vacuum beyond the ‘Perth and Peel at 3.5million’ targets (Local Government Planner 1). Further, lack of State leadership was enabling “a gross lack of uniformity in terms of the willingness of local governments [to develop higher density areas]..”

(Transport Professional 2)

In addition, this need for State leadership was expressed in the hope that there would be an urban growth boundary implemented (Transport Professional 1), whereby “Government may continue to release land on the urban fringes. Hopefully not.” (Transport Professional 3). This is also seen as an easy option for developers, who would resist changing their business model.

(Transport Professional 2)

Figure 23: Not enough State government design guidance to Local Government

The relationship of State government, local government, and developers, requires more intervention and oversight to streamline processes and to ensure a holistic design.

Many interviewees expressed that a significant barrier was having little control over private land for a holistic vision for development, and that the need for sites with more significant State government ownership and oversight was crucial.

As one Design Professional stated: “Subiaco worked because they controlled the dirt.” (Design Professional 1) The difficulties in achieving land amalgamation – and leaving too much to the private sector – has resulted in poor development: “very ordinary subdivision, duplexes and triplexes, rather than any sensible high rise.” (Transport Professional 1) As one Land Developer stated, “if you wanted to try to increase density, you’re dealing with an R20 kind of background. It’s near to impossible.” (Land Developer 2)

This frustration at how to influence development in these precincts was particularly prevalent in the inability of planning policy to force design: “we can put the planning in place, it’s then up to the landowners to actually do something. There’s only so much within our control.” (Local Government Planner 1)

A significant barrier was having little control over private land for a holistic vision for development, and that the need for sites with more significant State government ownership and oversight was crucial.

Figure 24: Fragmented lot ownership

Many interviewees expressed concern that the upgrade of Bayswater station would not impact favourably on the existing main street. State Government led upgrade leaving development of this existing area to local government.

Figure 25: Interface between Bayswayer station and precinct

Lack of diversity of dwelling typologies

Another significant barrier was the lack of diversity being offered in transit precincts, and the failure to market to a broader cross section of the community, as areas traditionally have aimed for young people and students (Land Developer 1) However this limitation has overlooked others, such as people who rely on public transport already, those with young children, or older adults; people who could be open to a TOD lifestyle, who might reflect that “‘Well, I normally wouldn’t have thought about getting an apartment.”” (Land Developer 2) This failure was also strongly considered with regards to the growing cohort of older adults:

“[Y]ou’ve got retirees – probably people on the pension, probably people who can’t afford a car…this increased group of people with mobility issues, who need public transport because they’ve got no options. And that’s where the design of station precincts, so they can get to those places easily, is gonna start getting really critical.” (Land Developer 3)

Overlooking such a key demographic –older adults – was highlighted by other interviewees. As one said,

“So [for] women of my age…it’s much more of a thing that they don’t want to get old and find themselves in old people’s homes. …Again, if it was a real TOD – a living, breathing space – it would [offer]…encouragement for those who don’t have money as well as those who do; old people as well as

young” (Community Consultation Professional).

Furthermore, more than a third of the interviewees commented specifically on the disappointing products being built and the lack of incentive to live in a transit precinct itself.

“So, we can’t even deliver diversity in apartment typology. … It’s the same layout, it’s the same design, it’s the same floor to ceiling height. Everything’s identical and they will tell you it’s diverse because they put the front door slightly differently” (Land Developer 2). This lack of incentive to choose an apartment over a house was echoed regarding the trade-offs that this would incur, for example location, cultural diversity, or affordability – whereby “apartments were the same price as a house. So why would you buy an apartment?” (Land Developer 3). This was echoed by one Transport Professional reflecting on Cockburn Central,

“[I]t’s a bloody desert in some ways, a cultural desert. It’s a long way from the water. It’s stuck on a freeway. So, the only advantage is you get a 16-minute ride into the city…I just don’t see the benefits of living there.” (Transport Professional 1)

As another commented, “I’ve lived in apartments overseas. I don’t particularly want to live in an apartment in Perth, but if I did, it would be so I could have a view of the river or the sea. I would not buy an apartment near a station. So again, you want people to live at high densities, why do they do it?.” (Land Developer 3)

26: Lack of diversity of dwelling typologies

The lack of diversity being offered in transit precincts, and the failure to market to a broader cross section of the community was seen as a significant barrier by interviewees.

Figure

Standard precinct dwelling typologies at

Figure 27: Cockburn Central station precinct

Cockburn Central.

Lack of effective communication to explain trade-offs to increase community support for TOD densification

Community opposition to development was another barrier mentioned by several interviewees, but – contrary to the perspective that community was generally resistant to development and density – this barrier was sympathetically specified as a lack of clear communication that some community members justifiably took issue with. In this regard, the emphasis here was about how to “bring the community along with you” rather than frustration with community for voicing concerns. As one Land Developer expressed, “And then the last thing is, what’s in it for the community? The government’s gone [in] and said, “This is really important. We want all this density. We want this and we want that.” And if you’re a local resident you’d be going, ‘What’s in this for me? Where is the upgrade to the parks? Where’s the street trees? Where’s the new community centre?’ So, a lot of residents in station precincts don’t see that they’re getting anything out of it, so I think the barrier is local resistance because they’re going, ‘What’s in it for me?’ And it’s not enough to say, ‘You’re getting an upgraded station’. Because we’re getting all this other stuff with it. ‘How’re you going to mitigate the impact of density and amenity on me?’”

(Land Developer 3 )

This feeling that there is a lack of true engagement was echoed by others,

particularly the feeling that excluding residents from the planning process heightened the misunderstandings and opposition that could follow. For instance, the emotive opposition to height in many developments was cited as a main concern of community members. One Transport Professional stated, “So, people couldn’t get their heads around height. And as soon as you go over effectively two storeys, it just became out of character… untenable. People were thinking Stalinist monstrosities from the Soviet Bloc and all the rest of it.” (Transport Professional 2) This failure of community members to envisage positive scenarios, however, was perceived as being partly due to the failure of government to provide real discussion and diverse options. As one interviewee explained,

“I don’t think people are involved early enough. I don’t think they understand that you’ve got to have trade-offs.” (Community Consultation Professional) In other words, “not just saying, ‘This is what you’re getting, this is state policy’. Actually, having a basket of improvements and being clear that, “We understand there will be amenity impacts, we’re investing in your community and we’re prepared to mitigate some of those costs.’” (Land Developer 3)

In particular, not addressing the concerns that design neglected the local context was considered a genuine barrier. Rolling out similar designs regardless of station location understandably therefore would cause

Figure 28:: Lack of effective communication to explain trade-offs to increase community support for TOD densification

Excluding residents from the planning process heightened the misunderstandings and opposition that could follow.

“huge uproar in your community because why would this community –which is completely different from that community – get the same development pushed through?” (Design Professional 2) This impact on community, who want considered and specific development, was also mentioned as a reflection of having set policy guides that aren’t contextually flexible. As one local planner expressed,

“I guess I see at times with the State government, …they just went ‘we’re not interested the fact that there’s different topography there, there’s different lot sizes. If it’s within 800 metres of a train station it has be X’.”

(Local Government Planner 1)

This barrier was expressly emphasised in relation to public meetings held with communities about future developments, where contradictory concerns and needs – such as around parking requirements versus attracting more people to an area – can create quagmires for local authorities to address. (Transport Professional 2)

In this scenario, the frustration of “the way that the State government sort of makes all these pronouncements about station precincts and then effectively seems to hand it to the local government to deal with the community flak” (Land Developer 3) was argued as the actual barrier to success – not the opposition itself. As the interviewee continued, “There’s rarely a State public servant in sight when that happens at any of the public meetings. If you’re going to invest in these stations, and this is a

State objective, then you’ve actually got to be up there, helping explain to the community why we’re doing that.” (Land Developer 3)

This failure to sell the plan to the community and consider objections as part of a monolithic opposition to any development, was considered therefore a significant barrier.

Barriers to TOD: summary

Taken together, these barriers convey a deep sense of frustration and feelings of lost opportunities, both through the ways in which developments around transit have been determined by infrastructure and operational requirements over experience and location, and the unmet potential of the precincts as a result.

Optimistically, however, the interviewees considered these barriers surmountable. In the following section, a collation of the mitigation strategies illustrates these possibilities for design-led development, through shifts in perspective and processes, which would prioritise diverse, creative, and genuinely appealing places and travel options over speed of development, standardisation, and fixed practices.

6/Mitigation strategies and recommendations

The mitigating strategies provide examples of where design-led development could prioritise diverse, creative, and genuinely appealing places and travel options over speed of development, standardisation, and fixed practices

General mitigation strategies were identified through discussion of the various barriers, above.

Many of the barriers, therefore, align with the following mitigation strategies

In relation to the current Precinct policy – SPP7.0, SPP7.2, its design guidelines, and discussion paper – these mitigating strategies highlight the need for a revisiting of ways in which the precinct design framework aims to offer more flexibility for contextual design (through less prescriptive specifications) and requires more overall criteria to be met. As they state,

“This allows design to be tailored to the specific needs and characteristics of the precinct. It reflects that every precinct is different. (SPP7.2 Draft guidelines, p.4)

In conjunction with a governance approach that enables much discretion to local government and developers with regards to community benefits and design review, these create a contradictory planning environment that could ultimately lead to less successful design outcomes. The following mitigating strategies will provide examples of where a more prescriptive statement within these broader policies could be appropriate to ensure excellence and maximise potential at these station precincts

Mitigating strategies for delivering successful Transit Oriented Development precincts.

This graph identifies the key strategies that interviewees identified that could mitigate the barriers to successful TODs.

(Source: interviews)

Integrate station with surrounding precinct

Plan strategically for specific origins and destinations within transit network

Strengthen State government leadership and introduce ‘TOD Redevelopment Areas’

Diversify genuine active and public transport options

Attract critical mass of community into precinct

Communicate unique benefits and trade-offs of density

Strategy 1: Integrate station with surrounding precinct

Make station and precinct a unified, delightful, living, active place for safety, protection from elements, experience, and integrated into surrounding fabric. This should include potential and existing residents, and those who may frequent the precinct for work, retail, or socialising. The aim here should be making these spaces “really dynamic and interesting” as “[e]xciting places really attract us. How do you make this a space where people want to go to?” (Community Consultation Professional)

A number of key objectives in the current precinct guidelines focus on Public Realm (Element 6), such as providing year round weather protection (C6.1.4) For example, attention is given to ensuring “a public realm that is inclusive, safe and accessible for people of all ages and abilities. “(O6.2). However, the focus on visual cues, landmarks, and recognisable intersections (C6.2.2) is both lacking specificity that would ensure excellent design outcomes, and narrow in its representation of navigation and inclusion.

Furthermore, the more diversity and intrigue that such places generate –and then eventually self-perpetuate –relies on a desire for people to be there. This means being realistic about the detrimental impact of overbearing transport infrastructure whereby “we try to connect ourselves by putting a rail there, but then we drop a shed in there. …Now, we’ve got the hard bit to do which is how do we now fill in and

create places that are safe?” (Land Developer 2)

The focus therefore needs to be not only on the station interface, and it being a natural transition between station and precinct, but also on the creation of continuity, and inviting elements through the extent of the precinct itself. Such measures are contained within the current Precinct policy in broad strokes, such as “To ensure large development sites are integrated into the surrounding areas” (O2.5), and associated considerations such as “Connect the development to the wider precinct and adjacent areas” (C2.5.1)

Recommendation:

Ensure community-led and dynamic design principles are the first determining factor, not transport infrastructure. This can be implemented through more specific and prescriptive desired design outcomes, to enable development to deliver on these objectives and not be misinterpreted or diminished as one of many considerations.

Figure 30: Integrate station and precinct

How do you make this a space where people want to go to?” Make the station and precinct a unified, delightful, living, active place for safety, protection from elements, experience, and integrated into surrounding fabric.

Strategy 2: Plan strategically for specific origins and destinations within transit network

Prioritise fewer key centres and refocus other energy on quantity of smaller hubs, need origins and destinations. This strategy involves ‘bringing the rail to density and activity, not density and activity to rail’.

As one Transport Professional suggested, the heritage rail lines offer much in the way of examples of successful, organic TODs, whereby “their station spacing is a lot closer, and the community is closer to it. The reserve is certainly not as wide. In addition, there are existing centres that are built.” (Transport Professional 1) Another echoed this sentiment, emphasising both the ways in which these stations are already “embedded into communities” (Transport Professional 3) and lazy land assets, creating obvious locations for increased public transport use, residential density, and activity.

In many instances, this means focusing less on quantity of major transport activity hubs, and a more diffuse, finer grain network of places that are considered destinations.

Recommendation:

Limit major redevelopment centres and instead focus on cultivating genuine non-CBD destinations. There is scope within the current METRONET precinct plan to allocate resources to the more organic and community-led development of particular station precents.

Given the definitions and criteria in the METRONET Precinct Design Guidelines and SPP 7.2 Precinct Design Guidelines there are particular precincts that currently fall within the definition of, or present opportunities for, a true TOD precinct. These are:

• those aligned with Station Precinct 2 (SP2) (City station precinct/ Strategic metropolitan in SPP4.2), for example Yanchep. Current examples of such precincts are Fremantle and Joondalup.

• those aligned with Station Precinct 4 (SP4) (Town station Precinct / Secondary/district in SPP4.2), such as Alkimos, Bayswater, and Ellenbrook. Current examples of such precincts are Claremont and Subiaco.

• those aligned with Station Precinct 5 (SP5) (Neighbourhood Station Precinct), such as Butler, Eglington, and Redcliffe. A current example of such a precinct is Swanbourne.

Stations that lie within freeway or highway reserves are currently designated as Station Precinct 6: Transport interchange, and as such should not be included in the TOD precinct efforts unless built beside an existing high activity centre (such as in the case of Leederville).

Figure 31: Plan strategically for specific origins and destinations within transit network

Limit major redevelopment centres and instead focus on cultivating genuine non-CBD destinations.

Strategy 3: Strengthen State

government leadership and introduce ‘TOD Redevelopment Areas’

Create more oversight through the State governance and planning hierarchy. Rather than this being a driver of ignoring neighbourhood context and character, it will enable a holistic vision – and streamlined processes – to enable the uniqueness of each area to flourish as development occurs. Ad hoc, individual lot, and cheap development can lead to detrimental local design and planning outcomes. Having oversight then ensures processes around design guidelines, enforcing design standards for Development Applications, and an integrated vision for the precinct, are adhered to; perhaps a “higher-level steering committee…. but on steroids to actually then get the next level of better outcomes for TODs.” (Land Developer 2) This also takes resourcing responsibility off local governments and ensures that no single transport agency dictates a design agenda. As one Land Developer stated,

“It’s as if we need a higher level of government or some form of government which, when you’re dealing with an issue around a TOD … that you are able to go somewhere and say, ‘Listen, there’s a higher strategic outcome that we need to try harder to achieve’. I think it’s more about leadership and a directive from higher up in government to say, ‘TODs are special places’””. (Land Developer 2)

This strategy can assist in mitigating design, planning, and infrastructure issues, enabling both excellent design outcomes and planning process efficiency. This move would also ensure that haggling over policy interpretation and/or contradictions at a local level is avoided and enable efficient development to accompany excellent design outcomes.

Recommendation:

Ensure special State governance ‘Redevelopment Areas’ for TOD precincts which cover more than the minimum walkable catchment radius of 800 metres around a transit station, utiising the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority Act 2011 and Precinct Planning Policy. The current ‘METRONET Zone of Influence’ covers “new rail lines, stations and level crossings targeted for removal” but does not expressly coordinate all activities within the precinct. (METRONET Station Precincts Design Guide 2019)

The existing Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority Act 2011 should be utilised in this instance to enable coordinated development within that precinct and should follow the example of having land committees charged with overseeing each precinct’s development. Such an approach would contrast with the draft SPP 7.2 which leaves such authority to the local government and/or developer and would subject transport agencies to meeting the broader design imperatives of the precinct.

Figure 32: Strengthen State government leadership and introduce ‘TOD Redevelopment Areas’

Create special State governance ‘Redevelopment Areas’ for TOD precincts which cover more than the minimum walkable catchment radius of 800 metres around a transit station.

Strategy 4: Diversify genuine active and public transport options

Ensure a comprehensive analysis of travel connectivity – at a human scale –outside of the rail network. A TOD that only provides unidirectional travel routes will not provide incentive for broader reduced car use, or public transport use beyond single trip activities like getting to and from work. In turn, this may not be enough of an incentive to buy-in as a potential resident. This is particularly relevant to TODs that are or will be located within or alongside freeway reserves, and for which active transport options for example, run alongside busy traffic and offer an inhospitable experience. This includes a whole of journey approach, which incorporates motivations and experiences of active travel, especially if the alternative is a drive down the freeway. Boring and unshaded bike paths, for example, can deter someone who might otherwise be keen to cycle to work or to the train station, and offer an easy way to incorporate physical activity into a day. As one Design Professional aptly explained,

“For a TOD to actually work … you need to think of the before and after transport. I’m living in my suburban house, getting into my car to get to the train station, train station next to the freeway, why would I stop?...you see then TOD’s are actually not just that little precinct, it is a whole network that you need to take into consideration.”

(Design Professional 2)

The current precinct policy (SPP7.2)

has a number of key references to the need for “accessibility and connectivity within and outside the precinct” (O2.2, p.34), design that “supports the built form and range of activities appropriate to the amenity, safety and function of the precinct” (O2.3), and “prioritises walking, cycling, public transport and shared mobility, and reduces car dependency” (O3.2). There is also reference to ensuring that there are “points of interest and activities along key pedestrian routes. Land use should support intuitive wayfinding through the precinct”. (C5.2.6) However these objectives are in contrast to how station locations are currently chosen and the focus on dominant modes of transport, such as heavy rail.

Recommendation:

Focus attention on developing existing road corridors that often are heavily utilised for their access to destinations outside the train network such as Stirling Highway and Canning Highway, as was achieved with high frequency bus on Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley. (Transport Professional 2)

These corridors offer more opportunity for provision of genuinely accessible and protected bike/ scooter/ skateboard lanes, and realistic travel options for diffuse population sprawl.

Figure 33: Diversify genuine active and public transport options

Focus attention on developing existing road corridors. These corridors offer more opportunity for provision of genuinely accessible and protected bike/ scooter/ skateboard lanes, and realistic travel options for diffuse population sprawl.

Strategy 5: Attract critical mass of community into precinct

Create precincts that offer interesting, affordable, and diverse options of dwelling types, and de-couple the assumption that TODs equals high rise density to create intensity and activity. As one Land Developer stated, “I think we’ve got to be really careful thinking that density’s got to be high-rise apartments…. I think that strata living’s not what a lot of people want for owneroccupation. It’s not just single house versus apartment, but it’s really clever mixed density as an alternative. And probably green title, because of the sort of barriers to strata living.” (Land Developer 3) Challenging the business as usual apartment development that is associated with TODs will involve consideration of how to make the precinct “aspirational” and “really special”. (Land Developer 2)

Creating a strong precinct means attracting diverse demographics to give the area layered cultural and social weight to ground it as a thriving community. In practical terms, this can be about offering creative spatial arrangements for residents, whereby co-living becomes more common for people not traditionally viewed as wanting to share housing: older adult siblings, coworkers, grandparents, families with very young children (Land Developer 1). To offer genuine opportunity, therefore, apartments need to vary in size, not just in number of bedrooms, and provide more bespoke elements (Land Developer 2).

This strategy requires engagement with potential and existing residents (Community Consultation Professional) Asking community members what genuinely would attract them to live in a town centre or closer to heavy transit can offer a lot to these discussions. This can particularly be imperative to exploring the benefits of moving to a TOD for older adults:

“I always use the argument, “So, where’s your grandkids live? And wouldn’t it be really great if they were 500 metres away from your house and you could visit them, and they could visit you? And you don’t have to get into your car and drive 40 kilometres to see your grandkids?’” (Design Professional 1)

To attract this diversity of occupants, however, a genuine diversity of dwelling types within a station precinct is critical. This appeal to diversification is contained within the current policies, as ‘dwelling mix’ which is defined as:“a measure of diversity in a development, considering factors such as number of bedrooms, bedroom/ bathroom ratio, accessibility, dwelling size, quality, price-point and design for children.” (SPP7.3, p.86). However, in practice –as expressed by the interviewees – this diversity is not occurring. Indeed, dwelling diversity is limited to a community benefit “providing a dwelling type identified as a priority by the local government” (SPP 7.2, p.29) which enables ‘diversity’ to instead be diluted to a single type of ‘different’ dwelling, for a particular demographic, rather than a genuine mix of housing choice.

Recommendation:

There is an opportunity to expressly redress this element of precinct design in the current draft precinct policy SPP 7.2.

Strengthen policy language to make tangible efforts towards a broad demographic mix a core criteria of station precinct design.

Figure 34: Attract critical mass of community into precinct

Create precincts that offer interesting, affordable, and diverse options of dwelling types, and de-couple the assumption that TODs equals high rise density to create intensity and activity.

Strategy 6: Communicate unique benefits and trade-offs of density

Offer unique additional features that require higher density to be delivered that are communicated to community members that sell a TOD on more than just faster transit. As one interviewee stated, “[c]ause at the moment we’re saying we’ve got public transport. Okay, what else? What else could you put in there? What does density also let you do that you couldn’t do anywhere else?” (Land Developer 3) There were three main creative suggestions made that could shift this focus to a desirably different precinct, and attract a broader cross section of the community.

The first is energy sharing, whereby power generation is included within the precinct itself, creating a novel optimisation of resources (Land Developer 3). The second is a true commitment to sustainable (or regenerative) precincts, in which station precincts become exemplars of genuine carbon neutral living (Land Developer 1; Community Consultation Professional). Thirdly, the opportunity for making station precincts the leaders in experimental housing could transform the potentially unappealing land around a new or upgraded rail station beyond ‘business as usual’ developers. This could especially be relevant for finding creative affordable housing options. (Design Professional 2)

Recommendation:

Allow TOD precincts to be spaces of creativity and amenity, not just functionality. Communicate density as desirable, not only promoting access to CBD.

These energy sharing and sustainability priorities are both within the purview of the current SPP 7.2, for example O1.4 “To minimise resource use, energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from the precinct”. (p. 31) However this is an opportunity to expressly use these elements as selling points for higher density living in station precincts.

Experimental housing could be captured through design competitions that expressly require a different series of design outcomes and products than would be otherwise offered in such precincts, offering a unique selling point for communities. This could also be presented as a one of the great benefits of such a precinct, which also involves the trade-offs such as a decrease in personal ownership of private land, increased residents, and noise.

Figure 35: Communicate unique benefits and trade-offs of density

Allow TOD precincts to be spaces of creativity and amenity, not just functionality. Communicate density as desirable, not only promoting access to CBD.

6/ Conclusion

The desire to create great places to live – rather than just fast transit

– means a focus on the ways in which these key trade-offs between transport infrastructure and human scale precinct development are negotiated and compromised

Planner Charles Marohn has argued that “Great places need a train less than a train needs a great place. Build the place first and transit becomes the logical, inevitable next step. No more transit-oriented development schemes. What we need is development-oriented transit.” (Quednau, 2018)

This research has demonstrated a strong need to revisit tired debates and assumptions about who does and doesn’t want density or development, and to look at the next wave of proposed TODs in Perth through a more human scale, inclusive, community-minded lens, rather than ensuring retail anchors or apartment sales as indicators of success.

Living near a heavy rail transit station may require trade-offs around increased noise, activity, and smaller dwelling sizes, which weigh far more on residential choice than a fast trip to the CBD. It is for this reason that far more emphasis on fostering a genuine, bottom-up community and implementing design that facilitates multiple social interactions and contact throughout a day; a destination not just an origin for transit.

Given the desire to create great places to live – rather than just fast transit – a focus on the ways in which these key trade-offs between transport infrastructure and human scale precinct development are negotiated and compromised is vital. This may require strategic governance interventions in ‘business as usual’ to allow the flexibility or creativity to encourage more diverse

(and possibly experimental) housing choice, precinct assets, and design that is grounded in everyday activities and community.

Pervasive narratives of community resistance to infill cannot therefore be equated with an existing preference for semi-detached housing per se but a failure to adequately communicate what benefits can be achieved in a denser living environment, such as energy sharing, creating a carbonneutral precinct, co-living arrangements for older adults, increased safety and activity, and interesting liveliness of the surrounds .

In addition, a more embodied approach to travel routines and incentives for active and public transport will involve a candid appraisal of the existing bike and pedestrian access from the perspective of a diversity of users, at a range of times of the day, in different weather conditions. For example, having a functional linear path is not enough, therefore, if it is unprotected, isolated, exposed to harsh elements, or removed from the rest of the precinct.

This approach includes a realistic consideration of distance and the ‘walkable catchment’ standard. Distance to and from transit, or within the precinct itself, should be measured not in metres or radius but the genuine obstacles or deterrents to usage. This includes physical walk throughs of spaces with people of a wide range of differences; for example, accompaniments to mobility such as prams or crutches, or experiences for

diverse genders, cultures, and ages.

For this reason, it is urged that planners consider the ways in which transitoriented developments associated with METRONET learn from mistakes of the past, and focus on the everyday routines and embodied movements of those targeted to live in these precincts and use these transit stations.

To give people a reason beyond transit, beyond a fast commute to the CBD, will be imperative to the success of TODs in an already sprawled city such as Perth .

Next steps

This report aims to be practical and offer suggestions for evidence-based policy and design for future development of transit precincts in Perth.

Given the wealth of data gleaned from the interviews, we intend to translate these findings into peer-reviewed journal papers and communicate the insights to industry and government, to ensure their impact is beyond academia. This may also involve short articles for a broader audience, to also reach those who want to help create great places through smaller scale initiatives and interventions, who may otherwise be excluded from a State policy narrative and program.

With these tools we can contribute to shaping these precincts in ways that future stakeholders will argue that ‘we got it right’.

Appendix I

Interview questions

Project specific

Can you tell me about a rail specific TOD (transit precinct/activity centre) project you’ve worked on in Perth?

• What was your role and when did you get involved (i.e., at strategy or concept, design and development, implementation, etc.)?

• Was it developed before, alongside, or after the train station of area established?

Assessment criteria

• What is your/your organisation’s definition of a successful transit precinct? Public transport use? Increased residents? Commercial investment?

• What were the aims for this precinct: as per density, diversity, design?

• What is the current status in line with these aims and/or when you finished working on it?

• Were there particular challenges to this site/place/process that you did not foresee?

Transit use & location

• What do you see as the barriers to train use in that area?

• Were any surveys of community done with regards to reasons they do/don’t use these stations?

• What did/do you think about the

relationship of the station to the precinct- distance, interface, connectivity, safety, etc.?

• If you had been able to choose where to put the train station where would it have been?

Land/ house/ apartment sales/ builds

• If sales/builds have been lower than expected, what do you think have been the barriers?

• If development was happening surrounding an established station, what are the challenges in retrofitting ‘place’ around a station?

• If development happening at same time as station, what were challenges

• What was the focus on creating a community? – marketing, etc. Did it emphasise the location and integration of transit?

Governance/relationships

• How would you describe the relationships between:

i. State policy and departments; and

ii. Local government and their TPSs;

iii. Private developers/ Landcorp?

• What were your main frustrations during this process?

• What encouraged or pleasantly surprised you in this process?

General

• Do you think the current classifications for activity centres and TODS is most effective?

• How could transit and land use planning be more integrated at a governance level?

• What do you think is being missed?

• What elements do you think are crucial in the design of the precincts around stations?

• What does the current policy get right about precinct design/activity centres?

• If you could change one thing about the delivery of transit precincts what would it be

Bibliography

Bell, S. L., Foley, R., Houghton, F., Maddrell, A., & Williams, A. M. (2018). From therapeutic landscapes to healthy spaces, places and practices: A scoping review. Soc Sci Med, 196, 123-130. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.11.035

Brown, A. L., & van Kamp, I. (2017). WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European Region: A Systematic Review of Transport Noise Interventions and Their Impacts on Health. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 14(8). doi:10.3390/ijerph14080873

Burton, P. (2017). South East Queensland: Change and Continuity in Planning. In Planning Metropolitan Australia (pp. 156-177): Routledge.

Cao, X., & Pan, Q. (2016). Rapid transit and land development in a diverse world. Transport Policy, 51, 1-3. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.06.001

Carpio-Pinedo, J., De Gregorio Hurtado, S., & Sánchez De Madariaga, I. (2019). Gender Mainstreaming in Urban Planning: The Potential of Geographic Information Systems and Open Data Sources. Planning Theory & Practice, 20(2), 221-240. doi:1 0.1080/14649357.2019.1598567

Chatman, D. G. (2013). Does TOD Need the T? Journal of the American Planning Association, 79(1), 17-31. doi:10.1080/01944363.2013.791008

Curtis, C. (2012a). Delivering the ‘D’ in transit-oriented development: Examining the town planning challenge. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 5(3). doi:10.5198/jtlu. v5i3.292

Curtis, C. (2012b). Transitioning to transit-oriented development: the case of Perth, Western Australia. Urban Policy and Research, 30(3), 275-292.

De Vos, J., Ettema, D., & Witlox, F. (2019). Effects of changing travel patterns on travel satisfaction: A focus on recently relocated residents. Travel Behaviour and Society, 16,

42-49. doi:10.1016/j.tbs.2019.04.001

Deboosere, R., El-Geneidy, A. M., & Levinson, D. (2018). Accessibility-oriented development. Journal of Transport Geography, 70, 11-20. doi:10.1016/j. jtrangeo.2018.05.015

Dittmar, H., Belzer, D., & Autler, G. (2004a). An Introduction to Transit-Oriented Development. In H. Dittmar & G. Ohland (Eds.), New Transit Town: Best practices in transit-oriented development (pp. 2-18). Washington: Island press.

Dittmar, H., Belzer, D., & Autler, G. (2004b). An Introduction to Transit-Oriented Development. In H. Dittmar & G. Ohland (Eds.), New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit-Oriented Development (pp. 2-17): Island press.

Dodson, J. (2010). In the Wrong Place at the Wrong Time? Assessing some Planning, Transport and Housing Market Limits to Urban Consolidation Policies. Urban Policy and Research, 28(4), 487-504.

Dovey, K., Pike, L., & Woodcock, I. (2016). Incremental Urban Intensification: Transitoriented Re-development of Small-lot Corridors. Urban Policy and Research, 35(3), 261-274. doi:10.1080/08111146.2016.1252324

Dovey, K., & Ristic, M. (2015). Mapping urban assemblages: the production of spatial knowledge. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 10(1), 15-28. doi:10.1080/17549175.2015.1112298

Dovey, K., & Symons, F. (2013). Density without intensity and what to do about it: reassembling public/private interfaces in Melbourne’s Southbank hinterland. Australian Planner, 51(1), 34-46. doi:10.1080/07293682.2013.776975

Dovey, K., & Wood, S. (2014). Public/private urban interfaces: type, adaptation, assemblage. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 8(1), 1-16. doi:10.1080/17549175.2014.891151

Elliot, R. (2017). Australia’s misplaced war on the Australian dream. In A. Berger & J. Kotkin (Eds.), Infinite suburbia (pp. 104-113). Boston: MIT.

Ettema, D., Gärling, T., Eriksson, L., Friman, M., Olsson, L. E., & Fujii, S. (2011). Satisfaction with travel and subjective well-being: Development and test of a measurement tool. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 14(3), 167-175. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2010.11.002

Ettema, D., Gärling, T., Olsson, L. E., & Friman, M. (2010). Out-of-home activities, daily travel, and subjective well-being. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 44(9), 723-732. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2010.07.005

Falconer, R., & Richardson, E. (2010). Rethinking urban land use and transport planning – opportunities for transit oriented development in Australian citiescase study Perth. Australian Planner, 47(1), 1-13. doi:10.1080/07293680903510519

Feng, X., Feng, Z., & Astell-Burt, T. (2017). Perceived public transport infrastructure modifies the association between public transport use and mental health: Multilevel analyses from the United Kingdom. PLoS One, 12(8), e0180081. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0180081

Goodman, R. (2017). Melbourne: Growing pains for the liveable city. In Planning Metropolitan Australia (pp. 59-83): Routledge.

Goodman, R., & Moloney, S. (2004). Activity Centre Planning in Melbourne Revisited. Australian Planner, 41(2).

Government of Western Australia. (2006). Development Control Policy 1.6 Planning to Support Transit Use and Transit Oriented Development. Western Australian Planning Commission

Government of Western Australia. (2010) State Planning Policy 4.2 Activity Centres for Perth and Peel, 166 C.F.R.

Government of Western Australia. (2019a). State Planning Policy 7.0 Design of the Built Environment. Perth: Western Australian Planning Commission

Government of Western Australia. (2019b). State Planning Policy 7.2 Precinct Design Guidelines (Draft). Perth: Western Australian Planning Commission

Government of Western Australia. (2019c). State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes Perth: Western Australian Planning Commission

Guerra, E., Cervero, R., & Tischler, D. (2012). Half-Mile Circle. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2276(1), 101-109. doi:10.3141/2276-12

Guthrie, A., & Fan, Y. (2016). Developers’ perspectives on transit-oriented development. Transport Policy, 51, 103-114. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.04.002

Hernandez, D. (2018). Uneven mobilities, uneven opportunities: Social distribution of public transport accessibility to jobs and education in Montevideo. Journal of Transport Geography, 67, 119-125. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.08.017

Hurley, J., Taylor, E., & Dodson, J. (2017). Why has urban consolidation been so difficult. The Routledge handbook of Australian urban and regional planning, 123-135.

Infrastructure Australia. (2018). Future Cities: Planning for our growing population. Retrieved from Jacobson, J., & Forsyth, A. (2008). Seven American TODs: Good Practices for Urban Design in Transit-Oriented Development Projects. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 1(2). doi:10.5198/jtlu.v1i2.67

Kamruzzaman, M., Baker, D., Washington, S., & Turrell, G. (2016). Determinants of residential dissonance: Implications for transit-oriented development in Brisbane. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 10(10), 960-974. doi:10.1080/1 5568318.2016.1191094

Kelley, K., Clark, B., Brown, V., & Sitzia, J. (2003). Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. International Journal for Quality in health care, 15(3), 261-266.

Kelly, J.-F., & Donegan, P. (2015). City limits: why Australian cities are broken and how we can fix them. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

Kim, H., Kwon, S., Wu, S. K., & Sohn, K. (2014). Why do passengers choose a specific car of a metro train during the morning peak hours? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 61, 249-258. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2014.02.015

Kim, S., Park, S., & Lee, J. S. (2014). Meso- or micro-scale? Environmental factors influencing pedestrian satisfaction. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 30, 10-20. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2014.05.005

Laquidara, M. (2018). Measuring Spontaneous Accessibility for Iterative Transit Planning. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2672(8), 485-496. doi:10.1177/0361198118780834

Legacy, C., Curtis, C., & Scheurer, J. (2017). Planning transport infrastructure: examining the politics of transport planning in Melbourne, Sydney and Perth. Urban Policy and Research, 35(1), 44-60. doi:10.1080/08111146.2016.1272448

Lin, T., Wang, D., & Guan, X. (2017). The built environment, travel attitude, and travel behavior: Residential self-selection or residential determination? Journal of Transport Geography, 65, 111-122. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.10.004

Lin, T., Wang, D., & Zhou, M. (2018). Residential relocation and changes in travel behavior: what is the role of social context change? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 111, 360-374. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2018.03.015

Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2010). A New-found Popularity for Transit-oriented Developments? Lessons from Southern California. Journal of Urban Design, 15(1), 49-68. doi:10.1080/13574800903429399

Lund, H. (2006). Reasons for living in a Transit-Oriented Development, and associated transit use. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(3), 357-366.

Mees, P. (2014). TOD and Multi-modal Public Transport. Planning Practice & Research, 29(5), 461-470. doi:10.1080/02697459.2014.977633

Middleton, J. (2011). Walking in the city: the geographies of everyday pedestrian practices Geography Compass, 5(2), 90-105. doi:10.1111/j.1749-8198.2010.00409.x

Moos, M., Vinodrai, T., Revington, N., & Seasons, M. (2018). Planning for Mixed Use: Affordable for Whom? Journal of the American Planning Association, 84(1), 7-20. doi :10.1080/01944363.2017.1406315

Mulley, C., Ho, C., Ho, L., Hensher, D., & Rose, J. (2018). Will bus travellers walk further for a more frequent service? An international study using a stated preference approach. Transport Policy, 69, 88-97. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.06.002

Mulley, C., Ma, L., Clifton, G., Yen, B., & Burke, M. (2016). Residential property value impacts of proximity to transport infrastructure: An investigation of bus rapid transit and heavy rail networks in Brisbane, Australia. Journal of Transport Geography, 54, 41-52. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.05.010

Næss, P. (2015). Built Environment, Causality and Travel. Transport Reviews, 35(3), 275-291. doi:10.1080/01441647.2015.1017751

Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2016). Urban and transport planning, environmental exposures and health-new concepts, methods and tools to improve health in cities. Environ Health, 15 Suppl 1, 38. doi:10.1186/s12940-016-0108-1

Noland, R. B., Weiner, M. D., DiPetrillo, S., & Kay, A. I. (2017). Attitudes towards transit-oriented development: Resident experiences and professional perspectives. Journal of Transport Geography, 60, 130-140. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.02.015

Olaru, D., & Curtis, C. (2015). Designing TOD precincts: accessibility and travel patterns. EJTIR, 15(1), 6-26.

Papa, E., & Bertolini, L. (2015). Accessibility and Transit-Oriented Development in European metropolitan areas. Journal of Transport Geography, 47, 70-83. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.07.003

Park, S., Kang, J., & Choi, K. (2014). Finding determinants of transit users’ walking and biking access trips to the station: A pilot case study. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 18(2), 651-658. doi:10.1007/s12205-014-0073-6

Plyushteva, A. (2018). Commuting and the urban night: nocturnal mobilities in tourism and hospitality work. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, 11(3), 407-421. doi:10.1080/19407963.2018.1556673

Plyushteva, A., & Schwanen, T. (2018). Care-related journeys over the life course:

Thinking mobility biographies with gender, care and the household. Geoforum, 97, 131-141. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.10.025

Public Transport Authority. (2018). Passenger Satisfaction Monitor 2018. Perth Qviström, M. (2015). Putting accessibility in place: A relational reading of accessibility in policies for transit-oriented development. Geoforum, 58, 166-173. doi:10.1016/j. geoforum.2014.11.007

Randolph, B., Freestone, R., & Bunker, R. (2017). Sydney: Growth, Globalization and Governance. In Planning Metropolitan Australia (pp. 84-108): Routledge.

Renne, J. (2005). Transit-oriented development in Western Australia: attitudes, obstacles and opportunities. Transit Oriented Development: Making it happen. Perth, Western Australia.

Ricciardi, A. M., Xia, J., & Currie, G. (2015). Exploring public transport equity between separate disadvantaged cohorts: a case study in Perth, Australia. Journal of Transport Geography, 43, 111-122. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.01.011

Rice, J. (2016). There Goes the Neighbourhood? Or Saving the World? Community Views about Transit Orientated Development. In J. Renne (Ed.), Transit Oriented Development: Making it Happen. London: Routledge.

Sá, T. H. d., Edwards, P., Pereira, R. H. M., & Monteiro, C. A. (2019). Right to the city and human mobility transition: The case of São Paulo. Cities, 87, 60-67. doi:10.1016/j. cities.2018.12.024

Schlossberg, M., & Brown, N. (2004). Comparing Transit-Oriented Development Sites by Walkability Indicators. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1887, 34-42. doi:10.3141/1887-05

Schuetz, J., Giuliano, G., & Shin, E. J. (2017). Does zoning help or hinder transit-oriented (re)development? Urban Studies, 55(8), 1672-1689. doi:10.1177/0042098017700575

Searle, G., Darchen, S., & Huston, S. (2014). Positive and Negative Factors for Transit Oriented Development: Case Studies from Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney. Urban Policy and Research, 32(4), 437-457. doi:10.1080/08111146.2014.931280

Singh, Y. J., Lukman, A., Flacke, J., Zuidgeest, M., & Van Maarseveen, M. F. A. M. (2017). Measuring TOD around transit nodes - Towards TOD policy. Transport Policy, 56, 96-111. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.03.013

Soria-Lara, J. A., Valenzuela-Montes, L. M., & Pinho, P. (2014). Using ‘Mobility Environments’ in Practice: Lessons from a Metropolitan Transit Corridor in Spain. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 17(5), 553-572. doi:10.1080/152390

8x.2014.991779

Stephenson, G., & Hepburn, J. A. (1955). Plan for the metropolitan region, Perth and Fremantle, Western Australia, 1955 : a report prepared for the Government of Western Australia. Perth

Tassi, P., Rohmer, O., Bonnefond, A., Margiocchi, F., Poisson, F., & Schimchowitsch, S. (2013). Long term exposure to nocturnal railway noise produces chronic signs of cognitive deficits and diurnal sleepiness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 33, 45-52. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.10.003

Taylor, E. J., & van Bemmel-Misrachi, R. (2017). The elephant in the scheme: Planning for and around car parking in Melbourne, 1929–2016. Land Use Policy, 60, 287-297. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.10.044

Thomas, R., Pojani, D., Lenferink, S., Bertolini, L., Stead, D., & van der Krabben, E. (2018). Is transit-oriented development (TOD) an internationally transferable policy concept? Regional Studies, 52(9), 1201-1213. doi:10.1080/00343404.2018.14287 40

Wennberg, H., Hydén, C., & Ståhl, A. (2010). Barrier-free outdoor environments: Older peoples’ perceptions before and after implementation of legislative directives. Transport Policy, 17(6), 464-474. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.04.013

Western Australia. (1970). The corridor plan for Perth. Perth: The Metropolitan Region Planning Authority

Western Australia. (1990). Metroplan: A planning strategy for the Perth metropolitan region. Perth: Art Gallery of Western Australia

Western Australia. (2004). Network city : community planning strategy for Perth and Peel. Perth

Wolday, F., Næss, P., & Cao, X. (2019). Travel-based residential self-selection: A qualitatively improved understanding from Norway. Cities, 87, 87-102. doi:10.1016/j. cities.2018.12.029

Woldeamanuel, M., & Kent, A. (2016). Measuring Walk Access to Transit in Terms of Sidewalk Availability, Quality, and Connectivity. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 142(2), 04015019. doi:10.1061/(asce)up.1943-5444.0000296

Contributors

Dr Zoe Myers (lead author)

Dr Zoe Myers is a lecturer at the Australian Urban Design Research Centre (AUDRC) at the University of Western Australia, where she leads and contributes to State and local research and design projects, and teaches in the Master in Urban Design.

Dr Julian Bolleter

Julian Bolleter is the Co-Director at the Australian Urban Design Research Centre (AUDRC) at the University of Western Australia. His role at the AUDRC includes teaching a master’s program in urban design and conducting urban design related research and design projects.

Grace Oliver

Grace is a research and teaching assistant at the Australian Urban Design Research Centre, UWA. Grace has conducted independent research for a range of built environment projects. Grace has high-level skills in research methods, architectural visualisation and in communicating with students, teachers, researchers and stakeholders.