Weaknesses: Darling Harbour’s relocated all port functions to create public space. It doesn’t challenge the integration of the private and public realm even though it’s a good example of reprogramming private land to generate public life in the area. Elevated infrastructure pierces through the area and is used as a primary route from the outer suburbs through to the city centre, bypassing the publicly focussed area. Total restructure and removal of port functions generated huge costs for the port itself as well as huge cost to create the public space. It is somewhat disconnected for people approaching the area from the west via walking, running, or cycling due to the developments representing a wall of buildings. There are no small thoroughfares to allow movement through, only around at either end. Strengths: It exemplifies a successful transition of trapped port landscape into a full-bodied public space; a dynamic amenity filled area that generates public life. It successfully represents a programmatic space targeted towards boosting the tourism economy of Sydney with hotels, convention centres and recreational opportunities set in place. This case study represents how an industrial zone can transform into an inviting and programmatic functioning public space for life to generate on the ground. By having clear programs in place it allows for development to rapidly occur in the direction that it intended. This actively reimagines and restructures the space in order for public life to flourish, as well as synergetic relationships to form in a programmatic response first. By identifying desires from the public and involving private stakeholders, it creates the ability to design meaningful architecture and dynamic public space that is fit for specific purpose.
Fig. 43: Diagram of programmed space. (image source: http://assets.cebit.com.au/wp-content/uploads/exhibition-centre21. jpg?9d7bd4)
81