The Urban Collective: Student Publication

T H O U G H T S

STUDENT PUBLICATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

JEMIMA CUMMINS, CLAIRE BUTCHER, HUE LIM & ALISA POON KATE FIELD JULIA FRECKER KATE HAUGHEY ESTELLA IZQUIERDO WHELAN HUE LIM LUCY LYON SHINYA MATSUMURA ELISE MILLER DYLAN PEPPERNELL SIMIONE TAUMALOLO MIA ZELLMANN

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

Disclaimer

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the editor and/or authors.

All articles, imagery, and visual rights are retained by the authors and original owners.

The opinions expressed in Collective Thoughts are those of the authors and not endorsed by the Editor or the University of Melbourne

All visual work in this zine can be viewed online via the accompanying QR code

Edited by Julia Frecker on behalf

of the Urban Collective

WE WOULD LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE IS LOCATED ON THE UNCEDED LAND OF THE WURUNDJERI PEOPLE. WE PAY RESPECTS TO THE ELDERS BOTH PAST AND PRESENT AND EXTEND OUR RESPECTS TO ALL FIRST NATIONS PEOPLE.

COLLECTIVE THOUGHTS

The Urban Collective presents ‘Collective Thoughts’ a spin off from our popular ‘Collective Conversations’ events that we have hosted in 2021 and 2022. While the ‘Collective Conversations’ events focused on providing students with conversations and connections with Industry professionals, ‘Collective Thoughts’ shifts the focus to the student voice, allowing students to submit work that they are proud of to form part of a publication.

The Urban Collective (formerly the Melbourne University Planning Student Society (MUPPS) represents the graduate students in the urban planning and urban design programs at the Melbourne School of Design (MSD). We have an established presence built over the last 10 years within the MSD and more broadly with industry. We run industry events, panel series and social gatherings.

The Urban Collective focuses on supporting a sense of community amongst the planning and design cohort and advocating for their interests. We are enthusiastic to collaborate with other student societies to take advantage of the interdisciplinary nature of the MSD and recognise the importance of this collaboration in reflecting working relationships within industry The Urban Collective is passionate about advocating for our fellow planning and design students, communicating their skills and talents with industry, and facilitating these connections to realise opportunities for further growth.

The Master of Urban Planning and Master of Urban Design student cohort comprises over a hundred graduate students, with a diverse range of interests and backgrounds We hope to continue to support connections between firms and our aspiring planners and designers, who are excited to learn more about the possibilities of a career in built environment.

We are proud to present this collection of inspiring works to be read by the Melbourne School of Design and wider University of Melbourne community

EVOLVING CHARACTER OF DEVELOPING REGIONS

TRACT INTERNSHIP MSD VOCATIONAL PLACEMENT

JEMIMA CUMMINS, CLAIRE BUTCHER, HUE LIM & ALISA POON

Planning and design were found to directly influence local character at two main stages the strategic stage and the development stage.

Character v Affordability Framework

A clear theme which emerged is the challenge of balancing local character with affordability. Not just in terms of housing affordability, but also ongoing maintenance costs for both the local communities and the local government. Through analysing matters set out in DEWLP’s Planning Practice Note 43 Understanding Neighbourhood Character, as well as developer design guidelines and our assessments on site, we attempted to provide a framework for practitioners to help guide decision making when planning and designing the evolving character in regional communities (Figure 1).

The framework demonstrates that a significant proportion of character can be implemented and achieved through small scale, affordable design measures such as front fencing pattern, native planting and prioritisation of permeable surfaces. For developments with a more affluent market or level of investment, an additional suite of design elements such as landscaped waterways, extensive private open urther reflect

A key finding is the level of influence that landscape character and extensive vegetation, both in the public and private realms, can have in contributing to character This creates affordable opportunities in policy and practice to maximise a development’s contribution to character, without perpetuating preconceived ‘must haves’ in the form of low density large lots and spacious backyards to constitute regional living.

Local character is an evolving process and through our site visits we have seen that well-designed development can strengthen an area ’ s existing character or positively contribute to an emerging one as well as meeting the interests of stakeholders involved

Ideally, any new development will be subject to high level strategic plans and planning controls that support local character objectives. However, our site visits made it clear that there were significant qualitative differences in the local character of each development that were not encapsulated by the presence/ absence of planning controls

In other words, planning controls alone are insufficient to protect the local character of regional areas. In the absence of planning controls that strongly protect local character, the key stakeholder becomes the developer and the challenge for practitioners is to show the value of choosing to create local character.

Lastly, the residents and businesses (the “end users ” of new communities) also play a role in creating local character. Developers and government have the opportunity to support this through temporary strategies after the development has been completed through public art, community planting days etc. This is an emerging space that could be explored further.’’

To read more of this wonderful project research project in full, please scan the QR code below

INTRODUCING AN URBAN AGRICULTURE STRATEGY TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE IN SINGAPORE

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

KATE FIELD

1193814

To: Jason Teo Director Urban Redevelopment Authority of Singapore (URA)

From:

Policy Advisor to the Director of the URA

This policy brief aims to outline the need to implement an urban agriculture strategy and policy options to address climate change in Singapore.

Context: Singapore is a country without a hinterland, needing to import over 90% of its food.[1] Continued population growth and food security concerns will place pressure on Singapore’s food system and domestic land uses. Singapore’s current reliance on imported food has significant carbon emissions compared with other nations where food is grown closer to consumers Further, 10% of Singapore’s food is imported by air, mainly chilled fish, berries and leafy greens, which substantially increase the emissions embodied in these products.[2] In Singapore, 40% of food waste occurred at the import stages before even reaching Singaporean consumers,[3] with fruits and vegetables most likely to be wasted.[4]

Increasing urban agriculture can help address climate change.[1] Urban agriculture, unlike traditional agriculture, can be defined as the production of food in the urban environment rather than in hinterlands and canvases multiple scales of agricultural production from small community gardens to large scale industrial farming. A range of policy options for a national urban agriculture strategy exist that could help Singapore address climate change while helping integrate existing policies for food security, climate change and urban development.[2]

Option 1: Community farms

Given 80% of the population live in URA managed blocks, the URA has the potential to vastly increase access to community farms. Food from community gardens is far less likely to be wasted, helping reduce the carbon consumption from food waste [3] Marginal climate benefits can arise from the community becoming more conscious about the environment because of community farming. [4] The main disadvantage of Option 1 is that there would not be adequate yield from community plots. A study found that even if every vacant lot in New York City was used for community gardens, only 160 000 of the 8.1 million people could be fed.[5] Furthermore, community gardens can be an inefficient use of water and fertilisers compared to industrial agriculture [6]

Option 2: Farming on high rise rooftops

Singapore is a high density urban environment, with many residential and commercial buildings having underutilised rooftops made of heat absorbing surfaces which contribute to the urban heat island effect (UHI).[1] Option 2 proposes to use Singapore’s high rise rooftops as spaces for urban agriculture. This option helps access underutilised horizontal surfaces for urban farming without needing to use new vacant plots, helping conserve Singapore’s scarce land while increasing cooling nature to combat UHI.[2] However, considerable retrofit costs may be attached to Option 2 to achieve roof spaces sufficient for farming, rooftop space used for urban agriculture compromises potential for rooftop solar generation and is an inefficient, dispersed agricultural model.

Option 3: High-rise, high-technology vertical food systems

Innovative vertical urban agriculture can be defined as practices where technology helps produce foods in high rise structures at industrial scales within Singapore’s borders.[3] Intense vertical industrial farming would be the most space efficient option for Singapore’s urban agriculture future.[4] It would also enable the use of hydronics or aquaculture farming to ensure the most water and fertiliser efficient means of food production [5] Doing so would enable Singapore to produce the foods that have the highest levels of embodied emissions or food wastage Trade offs would occur as this high technology farming is energy intensive and would need to be powered by renewable energy to maintain circular economy goals.[6]

Policyrecommendations:

WhileOption1isrelativelyeasytoimplement,itonlyhasmarginalbenefitstohelp address climate change due to its input inefficiencies and inability to produce enough food. Option 2 helps both cool the urban environment while producing foodbutcouldfailtoachieveindustrial scalefarming.

Option3isthebestopportunityforSingaporetoaddressclimatechangethrough urban agriculture. It is an innovative solution to Singapore’s land scarcity by helpingconsolidateindustrial scaleurbanagricultureinhigh rise,high technology environments. However, there are considerable drawbacks from the resource and water intensity of vertical farming practices,[1] therefore the success of Option 3 will rely on the policy’s dedication to a circular economy to reduce energy, water and contaminant inputs while maximising outputs.[2] Option 3 will also need to targetproducingthemostcarbonintensivefoodsconsumedinSingaporesuchas freshfruitandvegetablesandfoodsimportedbyair.[3]Further,Option3presents the opportunity for urban agriculture innovations produced by Singapore to be exported globally, extending its positive effects as the world urbanises and becomesevenmoreresourcescarce.

[1]SingaporeFoodAgency FoodImport&Export(2019) https://wwwsfagovsg/food import export

[2]Tanetal,“TrendandfuturescenarioanalysesofSingapore'sfoodsystemthroughthelensoflifecycleenvironmentalimpact”

[3]SingaporeEnvironmentCouncilandDeloitte AdvancingaCircularEconomyforFood:KeyDriversandRecommendationstoReduceFoodLossand WasteinSingapore(2019) https://secorgsg/wp content/uploads/2019/09/SEC Food Loss Studypdf

[4]NationalEnvironmentAgency 3RProgrammesandResources(2022) https://wwwneagovsg/our services/waste management/3r programmes and resources/food waste management

[5]JessicaAnnDiehl,etal “Feedingcities:Singapore'sapproachtolanduseplanningforurbanagriculture”GlobalFoodSecurity26(2020):100377

[6]JessicaAnnDiehl,etal “Feedingcities”

[7]Michal Kulak, Anil Graves, Julia Chatterton Reducing greenhouse gas emissions with urban agriculture: A Life Cycle Assessment perspective LandscapeUrbanPlan111,(2013):68 78 https://doiorg/101016/jlandurbplan201211007

[8]RaychelSanto,AnnePalmer,BrentKim “AReviewoftheBenefitsandLimitationsofUrbanAgriculture”JohnHopkinsCentreforaLivableFuture, (2016),https://clfjhsphedu/sites/default/files/2019 01/vacant lots to vibrant plotspdf

[9]Santoetal,“AReviewoftheBenefitsandLimitationsofUrbanAgriculture”

[10]Dian Armanda Jeroen Guinee Arnold Tukker “The second green revolution: Innovative urban agriculture's contribution to food security and sustainability Areview”GlobalFoodSecurity22,(2019):13 24 https://doiorg/101016/jgfs201908002

[11]TR Oke, “The Heat Island of the Urban Boundary Layer: Characteristics, Causes and Effects” In Wind Climate in Cities, eds JE Cermak, AG Davenport,EJ Plate,DX Viegas(Dordrecht,Springer,1995),81 107

[12]Santoetal,“AReviewoftheBenefitsandLimitationsofUrbanAgriculture”

[13]Kathrin Specht et al “Urban agriculture of the future: an overview of sustainability aspects of food production in and on buildings” Agriculture andHumanValues31(2014):33 51,https://doiorg/101007/s10460 013 9448 4

[14]Mohammed Khandaker and Benz Kotzen, “The potential for combining living wall and vertical farming systems with aquaponics with special emphasisonsubstrates”AquacultureResearch49,no 4,(2018):1454 1468,https://doiorg/101111/are13601

[15]DainaRomeo,EldbjørgBlikraVea,MarianneThomsen,“EnvironmentalImpactsofUrbanHydroponicsinEurope:ACaseStudyinLyon”Procedia CIRP69(2018):540 545 https://doiorg/101016/jprocir201711048

[16]Tanet al,“TrendandfuturescenarioanalysesofSingapore'sfoodsystemthroughthelensoflifecycleenvironmentalimpact”

[17]ToyokiKozai,“Resourceuseefficiencyofclosedplantproductionsystemwithartificiallight:Concept,estimationandapplicationtoplantfactory” ProceedingsoftheJapanAcademy SeriesB,Physicalandbiologicalsciences,89(10)(2013):447,DIO:102183/pjab89447

[18]Wageningen University & Research, Circular agriculture: a new perspective in Dutch agriculture Wageningen University, 2018 https://wwwwurnl/upload mm/6/e/e/07a9b802 0bbe 4a7e a2cb 597236a0d359 Circular%20agriculture%20

%20A%20new%20perspective%20for%20Dutch%20agriculturepdf

[19]Kulaketal,“Reducinggreenhousegasemissionswithurbanagriculture”

A CITY OF ONE’S OWN: HOW PLANNING CAN PROMOTE MORE INCLUSIVE PUBLIC SPACES FOR WOMEN

JULIA FRECKER

There is an undeniable impact on perceived safety and women ’ s behaviour (Rosenbloom, 1998), and it is something that, as women, we deal with every day. The work of Almanza Avendaño et al. (2022), Boomsma & Steg (2014) and Mahadevia & Lathia (2019) explores how many women will avoid places and situations perceived to be dangerous, resulting in a restriction on daily activities or mobility (Keane, 1998; Stanko, 1996; Whitzman, 2013) to avoid violence. Physical features that perpetuate concealment and entrapment (Boomsma & Steg, 2014) such as underpasses, dense vegetation, narrow laneways or car parks (Boomsma & Steg, 2014; Hudson & Rönnblom, 2020) are the biggest contributors to feelings of fear in the public realm due to their capacity to obscure an offender or prevent escape.

The presence of these factors will often influence the chosen route or destination to avoid navigating deserted and unsafe places altogether. Valentine (2022) describes these choices or changes as “coping strategies” (p 385) that we adopt to stay safe Personally, I am aware that I attempt to subvert the advice given to women about not walking at night, often forgoing the taxi or the crowded tram for a late night walk. However, I have come to understand that my own implementation of coping strategies is in itself a manifestation of my restricted enjoyment of the city. Whenever I navigate places alone, I cannot ignore my creeping habit of placing a few extra steps between myself and unknown individuals or putting away my phone to remain fully aware.

The implementation of coping strategies, however, only reiterates the narrative that it is the personal responsibility of women to keep themselves safe, rather than the responsibility of the city or urban context to facilitate safe spaces. This rhetoric is often espoused by police as crime avoidance (Stanko, 1996), and is well criticised by women and the media (Davey, 2018; Noonan, 2018).

The consistent crime avoidance narrative discounts the already numerous harm minimisationstrategies(AlmanzaAvendañoetal,2022;Cubbage&Smith,2009) implemented by women They are reiterated to us by our mothers, sisters, friends andthemediainthenever endingrhetoricofpersonalsafetyagainstharm Don’t walk at night, keep your keys between your fingers, avoid desolate streets, avoid dark alleys, hold your phone, don’t hold your phone, pretend to be on the phone, textmewhenyouleave,callmewhenyougethome,wherethis,don’twearthat, take off your heels, take out your headphones, take self defence, cross the road, walk faster, walk confidently, stay alert, stay with friends, stay at home (Almanza Avendañoetal,2022;Cubbage&Smith,2009;Stanko,1996;Valentine,1989)

AsexploredbyStanko(1996)thisconversationonlyreinforcesthefalsenarrative thatcorrectandresponsiblebehaviourcan“avoidtheviolenceofmen”(p.19)and perpetuates placing blame on the victim of an attack (Almanza Avendaño et al., 2022;Mahadevia&Lathia,2019)fornotbeingrigorousenoughwiththeirpersonal safety.This,therefore,placestheresponsibilityofavoidingunsafesituationsonthe shoulders of women (Stanko, 1996) and absolves men from being the perpetrators.Thisbecameparticularlypertinentinthewakeofthetragicmurderof Eurydice Dixon in 2018 when police advised women to take more personal responsibilityandbe“awareoftheirsurroundings”(Davey,2018;Noonan,2018), which was met by both public and media uproar. A crime avoidance rhetoric also dissuadestheideathatwomenhaveanequalrighttowalkwithoutfear.Walking atnightisnotaprivilegethatwecanlosethroughimproperactions,itisaright.

AlmanzaAvendaño,A M,Romero Mendoza,M,&GómezSanLuis,A H (2022) Fromharassmenttodisappearance:Youngwomen’sfeelingsof insecurityinpublicspaces PLOSONE,17(9),e0272933 https://doiorg/101371/journalpone0272933

Boomsma,C,&Steg,L (2014) FeelingSafeintheDark EnvironmentandBehavior,46(2),193 212

Cubbage,C J,&Smith,C L (2009) Thefunctionofsecurityinreducingwomen’sfearofcrimeinopenpublicspaces:Acasestudyofserialsex attacksataWesternAustralianuniversity SecurityJournal,22(1),73 86 https://doiorg/101057/sj200812

Davey,M (2018,June15) Menneedtochange:AngergrowsoverpoliceresponsetoEurydiceDixonsmurder TheGuardian https://wwwtheguardiancom/australia news/2018/jun/15/men need to change anger grows over police response to comedians

Hudson,C,&Rönnblom,M (2020) Isan‘other’citypossible?Usingfeministutopiasincreatingamoreinclusivevisionofthefuturecity Futures,121, 102583 https://doiorg/101016/jfutures2020102583

Keane,C (1998) EvaluatingtheInfluenceofFearofCrimeasanEnvironmentalMobilityRestrictoronWomen’sRoutineActivities Environmentand Behavior,30(1),60 74 https://doiorg/101177/0013916598301003

Mahadevia,D,&Lathia,S (2019) Women’sSafetyandPublicSpaces:LessonsfromtheSabarmatiRiverfront,India UrbanPlanning,4(2),154 168 https://doiorg/1017645/upv4i22049

Noonan,A (2018,June15) “Weshouldnotfeelafraid”:WomenslamsafetywarningsafterDixonkilling ABCNews https://wwwabcnetau/news/2018 06 15/warning on personal safety after eurydice dixon death criticised/9873588

Stanko E (1996) WarningstoWomen:PoliceAdviceandWomen’sSafetyinBritain ViolenceAgainstWomen 2(1) 5 24 https://doiorg/101177/1077801296002001002

Valentine,G (1989) TheGeographyofWomen’sFear Area,385 390

Whitzman C (2013) Women’ssafetyandeverydaymobility InBuildingInclusiveCities(pp 51 68) Routledge

PARTICIPATORY PLANNING STORYTELLING

KATE HAUGHEY 1198814

Storytelling is a universal practice. It serves as a vessel through which we share our experiences of pain, happiness and loss, and subsequently allows us to develop deeper understandings of and with one another blind to one ’ s age, colourorcognitivedisposition(Cook,2019).Thisessaywilldiscussstorytellingas a method of including Indigenous voices in the research process in a culturally appropriate way and the use of yarning to obtain a holistic understanding of experiencesthatquantitativemethodsdonotallowfor

Quantitative research methods are rigid and often fail to provide a space for the researcher and research participant to develop a deeper relationship. While storytellingoffersasolutiontothisproblem,ithasbeencriticisedforitsmessyand sometimes unquantifiable nature (Bessarab & Ng'andu, 2010). This is especially problematic for Indigenous people participating in research as Martin (2009) notes,storytellingisafeatureofIndigenoussocietieswhereoraltraditionsarethe main form of transmitting and sharing knowledge with one another and “to deny storytelling as a legitimate means of collecting information is to deny someone ’ s lived reality” (p. 41). In order to include Indigenous people in research, in a way that honours their lived experiences and way of conveying information, research methodsoughttobeemployedthatarecompatiblewiththeirwaysofknowledge producing

Human’softenfeartheunknownandthusresorttolabelling,categorisingandthat of the sort resulting in stereotyping and stigmatising (Cook, 2019). However, humansareinherentlycuriouscreaturesandseektofindacommongroundwhere they can storytelling offers an opportunity to do just this, in a somewhat mediatedspace.

Question: Should we not strive to find the common thread that binds us to one another, the thread that makes us human? The thread that we all have a story to tellnomatterwhoweareorwherewecomefrom?

Bessarab D & Ng'andu B (2010) Yarning about Yarning as a legitimate method in indigenous research International Journal of Critical IndigenousStudies,3(1),37 50 https://doiorg/105204/ijcisv3i157

Cook, A (2019) Telling tales: Using story as a mode of Encounter Planning Theory & Practice, 21(1), 157 163 https://doiorg/101080/1464935720191676561

Martin,K (2009) Pleaseknockbeforeyouenter:Aboriginalregulationofoutsidersandtheimplicationsforresearchers

TheAustralianJournalof IndigenousEducation 38(1) 110 112 https://doiorg/101375/s132601110000065x

CONSOLIDATING THE AUSTRALIAN DREAM; HOUSING ASPIRATIONS OF YOUNG ADULTS IN MELBOURNE

ABSTRACT

The notion of ‘home’ as a house on a large block of land has been a key ideal of a longstanding ‘Australian Dream’. Chasing the Australian Dream is common in the psyche of a settler colonial and immigrant society where, for several generations now, it has often meant a ticket to financial profit, conventional family comfort and a stake in the political agenda. The cultural concept is oft considered to be a powerful social norm in Australia, so much so that there continues to be de facto democratic support for urban sprawl and restrictions on densification in established residential neighbourhoods, despite the impacts on sustainability and social equity.

The thesis takes an exploratory approach to better understand how ideals of the Australian Dream may or may not be influencing the kinds of housing and neighbourhoods that young adults actually want to live in.

An online survey was created in an attempt to answer the following research questions;

1) To what extent do young adults living in Melbourne aspire towards the Australian Dream?, and

2) What kinds of housing and neighbourhoods do young adults wish to see more of in Melbourne?

CONCLUSION

Due to sampling and survey limitations, the findings could only be generalisable to a population described as comprising more well educated, professional and socioeconomically privileged inner city residents relative to the wider population. Nevertheless, there is evidence that this young demographic has a ready appetite for change when it comes to aspiring towards more compact forms of medium density housing. In particular, the findings point to a strong preference to live in well connected neighbourhoods that do not rely on private cars for transport, and openness to larger and well designed shared or public spaces as a trade off for smaller private dwellings.

Where respondents expressly aspired towards traditional ideals of the Australian Dream, underlying thematic links were found to be able to translate ideals of spaciousness and a the leafy suburban character afforded by large lots, into practical design solutions such as more communal spaces and gardens within a city context. The implications of the research suggest that much more must be done to plan and deliver on 20 minute neighbourhoods in Melbourne, particularly across established inner and middle suburbs.

The rhetoric spieled by the media and political spheres around narratives of home, the good life and the right to a home versus a house, must undergo a transformative yet necessary shift to help reshape the cultural and social norms around housing. If housing provision is able to better reflect the housing aspirations of young people as surveyed in this research, there is immense potential for the future of urban consolidation in Australian cities.

SHUT UP AND LISTEN PLANNERS

Throughout my planning degree, I have realised that the greatest planning literature to draw on is that which is concerned with tearing the entire profession to shreds. At the beginning of the semester, we began our journey exploring planning through how it is rooted in certain assumptions made by planners to improve public life in the name of “public interest” (Fincher & Iveson, 2008, p. 27). In this paper, Fincher & Iveson suggest that it is through this assumed uniform public interest that the actual intersectional social identities that make up the diverse public are lost (2008). This philosophy of ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ is still seen in many publicly funded works today and shows how those who do not fit certain race, background, language, sexuality or gender domains can be rendered invisible to decisions such as where public housing should go, where and how toilets are provided for the public, and the number of migrants that are to be permitted into Australia.

Through the case studies provided to us by the lectures by Charishma Ratnam and Simona Castricum, we were shown that planning and design don’t always have to be for people, we can also plan and design with people. Rather than focusing on a particular outcome in the name of these voiceless, future communities, we have been shown how consideration and listening can lead to better planning outcomes. Firstly, we were introduced to the work of Charishma Ratnam who explored how listening could be used as a research methodology when exploring the lived experiences of Sri Lankan refugee women and their settlement in Australia (2019).

Through noting how stories were told, observing the body language of participants,andexploringherowninvolvementintheprocess,Ratnamwasable toresearchthissensitivetopicwithcareandincollaborationwiththeparticipants. Although the interviews revealed traumatic and harrowing experiences, the followingconversationsshowedthatparticipantswere“extremelyhappywiththe discussion”andgladtobeapartoftheexperience(Ratnam,2019,p.23).

This approach can also be seen in the work of Simona Castricum who was introducedtouslaterinthesemester,whoshowedusthemanywaysthattrans people face barriers and administrative violence in the design and planning. Her approach to listening was shown in her asking several trans or gender queer peopletobeonapaneltoanaudienceofarchitects,sothattheirexperiencemay be revealed in the choices made by the designers of the city (Castricum & University of Melbourne, 2018) These opportunities gather more information on the “other” social identities that have been so often rendered invisible in public policyorotherdatacollectionmethodsandshowtechniquesofcareandcuriosity thataresooftenlostinacademicresearch

Castricum, S & University of Melbourne (2018, March 20) More Than Bathrooms: Gender Diversity in Architecture https://wwwngvvicgovau/program/more than bathrooms gender diversity in architecture/

Fincher B & Iveson (2008) Planning and Diversity in the city: Redistribution Recognition and Encounter Palgrave Macmillan http://hdlhandlenet/11343/28047

Ratnam,C (2019) Listeningtodifficultstories:Listeningasaresearchmethodology Emotion,SpaceandSociety,31,18 25

UNDERSTANDING NEO-COLONISATION AND FIRST NATIONS EXCLUSION WITHIN OUR URBAN ENVIRONMENTS

INCLUSIVE CITIES

ELISE MILLER

949187

Porter's (2018) research identified how the Indigenous connection to Country is poorly understood within Australian cities. The reparation of Indigenous land has been explored through the recognition of native title, following the Mabo v Queensland decision in 1992 (Porter, 2010; Walker et al., 2013). However, as Wensing & Porter (2016) have shown, this process is inherently flawed, as it forces engagement with the same settler colonial planning system that was historically employed as a “tool of colonial dispossession” (Wensing & Porter, 2016, pp92). For instance, Boyce (2011) outlined how the definition of Melbourne’s urban boundary was reinforced in 1835, to prohibit Aboriginal People from entering and forcibly claiming land through subdivision and the introduction of land tenure systems (Boyce, 2011). Blatman Thomas (2017) contend that this removal emphasised the absence of Indigenous People within urbanised spaces and incorrectly maintains the ‘pseudohistory’ (Haebich, 2001, pp72) that confines authentic Indigenous identities to rural and natural environments (Blatman Thomas, 2017) The sacred relationship between Indigenous People and the land is often overlooked within highly constructed environments, however, the presence of infrastructure cannot be divorced from its direct relationship to Country (Porter, 2018)

Indigenous dispossession is further evident within our urban environments, as one of the native title requirements necessitates proof of a continual connection to the land, however, does not take into account the historical systematic removal of Indigenous People from Australian urban centres (Porter, 2018).

Wensing & Porter's (2016) research found only 13% of Native title applications were successful in 2015, and found that 57% of applications were concerningly considered “withdrawn, discontinued, dismissed or rejected” (Wensing & Porter, 2016, pp95). The unrealistic requirements for native title claims have been widely acknowledged as an enduring injustice Indigenous People experience (Walker et al., 2013; Watson, 2009), and further exemplify the discrimination that disrupts IndigenousPeople’sconnectiontoCountrywithinurbanisedenvironments

Porter’s(2018)researchrecommendedthecentringofCountry,asanapproachto resist the current system of settler colonialism This reframing of Country calls for history to be revisited, and further challenges whose history is being prioritised. Comparably,Prout Quicke&Green(2017)researchaddressedhowtheabsenceof urban Indigenous People was symptomatic of processes of gentrification and urbanrenewal,whichmaintainsthetrajectoryofIndigenousdispossessionwithina contemporary context Similar to Porter (2018), Prout Quicke & Green (2017) outline how the modern understanding of urban life has positioned Indigenous People’s traditional connection to the land as no longer viable, thus disseminating andreinforcingthecurrentsettler colonialistsystem.Theintersectionbetweenthe multiple injustices Indigenous People endure within urban environments demonstrates the complexity of de colonisation and Indigenous reconciliation Therefore, understanding Country merely through its spatial attributes delegitimises urban Indigenous People’s relationship and right to the land (ProutQuicke & Green, 2017). The city has been employed as a tool to position Indigenous People’s right to the city as “invisible, illegitimate or threatening” (Prout Quicke&Green,2017,pp170),thereforethereisapressingneedtodispel theseperceptionstofurtherthereconciliationandreparationofIndigenousrights.

Blatman Thomas N (2017) Fromtransientstoresidents:UrbanIndigeneityinIsraelandAustralia JournalofHistoricalGeography 58 1 11 https://doiorg/101016/jjhg201707006

Porter,L (2010) Unlearningthecolonialculturesofplanning Taylor&Francis https://cat2libunimelbeduau/search S30?/XUnlearning+the+colonial+cultures+of+planning&searchscope=30&SORT=D/XUnlearning+the+colonial+ cultures+of+planning&searchscope=30&SORT=D&SUBKEY=Unlearning+the+colonial+cultures+of+planning/1%2C2%2C2%2CB/frameset&FF=XUnl earning+the+colonial+cultures+of+planning&searchscope=30&SORT=D&1%2C1%2C

Porter,L (2018) FromanurbancountrytourbanCountry:ConfrontingthecultofdenialinAustraliancities AustralianGeographer,49(2),239 246 https://doiorg/101080/0004918220181456301

Porter,L,Jackson,S,&Johnson,L (2018) Indigenousplanning:Emergingpossibilities

Walker,R,Jojola,T,&Natcher,D (2013) ReclaimingIndigenousPlanning:ReclaimingIndigenousPlanning McGill Queen’sUniversityPress http://ebookcentralproquestcom/lib/unimelb/detailaction?docID=3332617

Watson,I (2009) SovereignSpaces,CaringforCountry,andtheHomelessPositionofAboriginalPeoples SouthAtlanticQuarterly,108(1),27 51 https://doiorg/101215/00382876 2008 021

Wensing,E,&Porter,L (2016) Unsettlingplanning’sparadigms:TowardsajustaccommodationofIndigenousrightsandinterestsinAustralian urbanplanning?AustralianPlanner,53(2),91 102 https://doiorg/101080/0729368220151118394

PLACE AND STORYTELLING: A TALE OF PARTICIPATORY PROCESS FOR JUST PLANNING

PARTICIPATORY PLANNING

DYLAN PEPPERNELL

1211635

“Those who tell stories rule society.” Plato

I argue that planning is innately emotional, and thus fundamentally necessary and critical to just planning. And as such, I advocate that using participatory practices such as placemaking and storytelling are two critical aspects that can recognise power and reinstate justice and humanity back into planning. This argument defines ‘just planning’ as a practice that works towards meaningful justice that recognises, reflects and represents the needs, wants and values of its citizens (Davoudi 2013, p. 4; Nemeth et al. 2020, p. 354).

Placemaking and storytelling are essential to planning as planning is a fundamentally human practice at its core. Creating place and telling stories are uniquely human attributes that express and recognise life and lived experiences. Although these are traditional informal elements of planning practice, they hold a distinct value in redistributing power through participation. If you try to plan for the people, and not with the people, telling their story, their future and/or past for them, insurgent planning is bound to arise Although insurgent planning is celebrated by some as a success or triumph of resistance (Simone 2004), I stipulate that it should be recognised as a failure of planners and their practices. Creating an environment of ‘celebrated’ opposition between planner and citizen harms the outset goal of planning, which is to achieve a beneficial relationship that works towards a shared future through productive and collaborative methods. Frediani and Cocina (2009, p 144) says it best, the discussion needs to shift from “participation in planning to as planning”.

Enterplacemakingandstorytelling.Twoparticipatoryplanningpracticesthatbring together emotion and humanity into the formal setting As Zapata (2020, p 614) asserts, “emotion should be at the heart of planning for justice”. Recognising people and their past, present and future visions. Allowing them to create their own story and environment in coalition with planners. Redistributing power, allowingpeopletospeak,tobeheardandtoberespected.Thisiswhatitmeansto care for your community This is effective social production of one ’ s environment that strives for progress in the emancipation of groups who are socially excluded, segregated and without equal power or rights to their own place (Frediani and Cocina2009,p.152).

Frediani, AA and Cociña, C, 2019, ‘'Participation as planning': Strategies from the south to challenge the limits of planning’, Built Environment, vol 45,no 2,pp143 161

Davoudi S 2013 ‘OnJustice:TowardsaFrameworkfor“JustPlanning” PlanningReview vol 49 no 2 pp4 5

Németh,J,Hollander,JB,Whiteman,ED andJohnson,MP,2020,‘PlanningwithjusticeinmindinashrinkingBaltimore’ JournalofUrbanAffairs, vol 42,no 3,pp351 370

Simone A 2004 ‘FortheCityYettoCome:ChangingAfricanLifeinFourCities’ Durham NC:DukeUniversityPress

Zapata,M,&Bates,L,2020, PlanningJustFutures ,PlanningJustFutures,vol 22,no 4,pp 614 615

SCAN HERE FOR A CLOSER LOOK

THE INADEQUATE PROTECTION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INDIGENOUS HERITAGE AND CULTURE WITHIN THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT

(1987): AN ARGUED CASE

Planning law in Victoria and Australia are characterised by European style legislation and regulatory systems The Planning and Environment Act 1987 forms the framework upon which decisions regarding the ‘planning of use, development and protection of land in Victoria are based upon ’ (Section 1) Emerging systems have challenged the notion of sovereignty over land. The introduction of the Native Titles Act in 1994 recognised the previous ownership of the land before colonisation. This was spurred by the pivotal judgement of Mabo v Queensland, which ultimately saw the High Court overturn the notion of terra nullius and recognise Indigenous land ownership (Cawthorn, 2020) Aboriginal cultural heritage in Victoria is protected through the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, which has established a Council, Register and authorised officers that enforce and preserve policies associated with Aboriginal Heritage (State Government of Victoria, 2021). Although legal progressions have enabled the recognition and protection Aboriginal heritage, the coexistence of both colonial and Aboriginal heritage conservation is still largely overshadowed by a power imbalance and incongruent interests.

Neoliberal and neo colonial imperatives heavily inform planning practises today (Porter, 2017) Economic interests that dictate land use are still reflected in the limitations of the Native Title Act

For example, it is prohibited for a native title to be claimed on land in relation to presence of minerals, gas, or petroleum (Cawthorn, 2020) Freehold land is also excludedtoanyclaimsofnativetitle TheNativeTitleActpurportstocreatealegal tooltoprotectintangibleheritageandrecognisethetraditionalownersoftheland, yetinpractisecreatesafurtherobstacleforaboriginalgroupstoprotecttheirland.

The Planning and Environment Act aims to protect the land for the present and future interests of all Victorians. However, a systematic exclusion of Aboriginal interests can still be felt in the Act Only a very limited section of the Act incorporates the interests of Aboriginal heritage preservation Section 46AV(1a) establishesthat‘theStatementofPlanningPolicyforadeclaredareamust…setout Aboriginal tangible and intangible cultural values, and other cultural and heritage values,inrelationtothedeclaredarea’.

Legal tools for establishing the recognition and protection of traditional landownership are a historical and political progression. However, clear power imbalances heavily dominate the processes required to make native title claims or protect culturally sensitive land Aboriginal groups are forced to participate in and conform to a legal system which does not fully understand their values and understandingofplace.Furthermore,theauthoritygiventotheMinisterinboththe Act and the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 additionally exemplifies the power imbalance. Aboriginal groups seeking to reclaim land and acknowledge heritage sites are subordinate to those given power under the colonially constructed legal system

ProcessesinplacetoprotectAboriginalheritagearenotsufficientlyembeddedinto the current Victorian planning system. Attempts to integrate Aboriginal understandings of heritage and tools to reclaim land largely stand as tokenistic gestures in recognising previous custodians of the land. This is largely present in the Act, VPPs, Native Titles Act and Aboriginal Heritage Act. It is clear that protectionofcolonialculturalheritageandbuiltheritageisgivenlegalprecedence over Aboriginal heritage Evident power imbalances still characterise the relationship between Aboriginal groups and legislation enforcers. There is still room for improvement to fully and comprehensively integrate processes of acknowledgingAboriginallandwithintheprotectionofbuiltculturalheritage.

Cawthorn, M (2020, August 31) Native title, rights and interests Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies https://nativetitleorgau/learn/native title and pbcs/native title rights and interests

Porter, L (2017) Indigenous People and the Miserable Failure of Australian Planning Planning Practice and Research, 32(5), 556 570 https://doiorg/101080/0269745920171286885

State Government of Victoria (2021, October 6) Aboriginal heritage legislation https://wwwfirstpeoplesrelationsvicgovau/aboriginal heritage legislation