Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Peoples' vision diverges from Mayor's

Brisbane city must accommodate 145,000 new dwellings by 2026. This has forced a rethink of the current City Plan, which as it stands, cannot cater for this level of growth.

In a break from the top-down, zoned approach of the past, Brisbane City Council (BCC) is attempting to refine its new plan in close consultation with residents through the ‘Neighbourhood Planning’ process.

But what happens when the residents begin to disagree with the politicians? As we move through the process, it is becoming more apparent that current Lord Mayoral policy - namely building tunnels - is increasingly at odds with a public becoming more informed by the day.

The Neighbourhood Planning process began by suggesting four ‘city shapes’; theoretical macro-level models on future urban growth in Brisbane.

The four City Shapes were:

1. Compact City - development would be focussed on the existing CBD, with higher density dwellings progressively giving way to medium and then to low-density.	2. Dispersed City - would see small neighbourhood centres established with minor employment precincts. Housing density – though generally more even than other options – would be slightly more focused on these micro-centres.
3. Corridor City - would see higher density mixed use development focussed along major and enhanced [public] transport routes, with blocks set back from the routes retained for lower density living areas. The corridors need not radiate out from the CBD but may connect other major centres.	4. Multi-centred City - would see a network of hierarchical centres of employment, service and mixed-use development. Improved public transport, cycle ways and pedestrian routes would link the centres.

The consultation has so far revealed a strong preference for the ‘Multi-centred’ and the ‘Corridor city’, from widespread – if simplistic - polling. Residents have been attracted by the prospects of these models reducing traffic congestion and improving public transport opportunities, whilst supporting a pattern of development which will draw employment and services closer to their neighbourhoods.

At the centre of it all is a strategy to improve land use efficiency – ie increase density – to allow public transport routes to become viable and to reduce the Brisbane’s reliance on the motor car. The regional plan prescribed an urban footprint and a dwelling target. BCC must now demonstrate where, when and how this growth will be accommodated.

More detailed consultation – which has included a residents' conference ("CityShape Conference") – is now fleshing out public priorities, within the framework provided by the preferred CityShape.

The results from the conference are particularly heartening and show that - when given the information, the time and the space to discuss issues - people will make well thought out decisions.

Analysis of the conference proceedings reveal the following priorities: (Out of 491 total)

Theme	No. of messages
Transport
Promote car alternatives	7
Better public transport linkages	7
Improve range of public transport	2
Deploy public transport initiatives	1
Improve multi-modal transport safety	1
Housing
Promote “Urban village” concept and suburban housing mix	33
Protect character housing (“Queenslanders”)	5
Regulate to achieve more sustainable development outcomes	8
Community involvement in planning decisions	5
Habitat / Sustainability
Protection of bushland and biodiversity on private and public land	14
Secure recreational open space	3
Improve suburban streetscape	2
Community
Fairness in service provision	1
Economy and infrastructure
Implement integrated water management	11
Infrastructure to lead development	2
Implement user/developer pays system of infrastructure charging	1

What is evolving is a preferred pattern of development which begins to shift Brisbane towards being a more sustainable city; with reduced transport demand, protected green space, stringent building codes and [re]creating communities as employment, service and social hubs.

Unfortunately, the CityShape delegates are getting ahead of general public and dominant political opinion.

While delegates are talking of massive investment in public transport and pedestrian infrastructure, we have a council administration voted in to spend $5.2 billion on road tunnels.

And while delegates see huge opportunities to enforce more sustainable housing and development standards, we have a State government too weak to mandate solar hot water systems and rainwater tanks on all new dwellings, for fear of upsetting developers.

Nowhere do the CityShape delegates talk about more bitumen, more travel demand and unsustainable development as being part of the answer.

Despite the best will in the world – and an independent selection panel – the delegates to the conference did not represent the ‘average’ Brisbane resident. To put forward their name for nomination they would have been already committed to making Brisbane a better place. In general, they probably came from a better educated and a more activist background. Therefore, they would have been more progressive in the their thinking about growth management issues.

When presented with the draft CityShape, the delegates effectively said “Good start, but it's a bit timid.”

The challenge remains to lift the level of broader understanding above that of the 10-second sound-bite on which modern elections are decided. More roads is easy to sell, particularly when couched in terms of ‘fixing’ the perceived congestion issue. Dismal failure is only apparent once billions of dollars have already been squandered.

The CityShape conference opened people up to new ideas and provided the freedom to arrive at answers far more sophisticated than ‘just more of the same’.

Unfortunately, the final document will remain timid. The findings of the conference reveal that informed public opinion is at odds with current political doctrine and the Lord Mayor will not be swayed in his ambition to build Brisbane out of traffic congestion.

He is unshakable in his belief that he was voted in to build his tunnels and that building tunnels is the answer. So what if a bunch of lefties, academics and busy-bodies came up with a different answer?

The next stage of the consultation process is go back to the communities. Newman has demanded we reach out to the 'Mums and Dads' who are his constituency backbone, but who are traditionally exceedingly difficult to attract to consultation events, unless something is about to impact on their house price.

Here, Newman feels safe. Here, the punters will agree with him because they will not devote the time to explore the issues. This is Liberal country.

However, the final CityShape – though it may end up something of a dog’s breakfast – will be yet another factor lying contrary to the Lord Mayor’s proposal to build tunnels across Brisbane, alongside peak oil, issues over the value of public-private partnerships, the State government’s Regional Plan, changing housing demands and an aging population.

---