This is the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for pub-lication in the following source:

Miller, Evonne & Kennedy, Rosemary J.(2012)Public realm and transport, international best practice case studies andopportunities for Brisbane.Centre for Subtropical Design, Brisbane Qld.

This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/53756/

c© Copyright 2012 Queensland Univeristy of Technology

Notice: Changes introduced as a result of publishing processes such ascopy-editing and formatting may not be reflected in this document. For adefinitive version of this work, please refer to the published source:

1

Public Realm and Transport

International best practice case studies and opportunities for

Brisbane

February 2012

Associate Professor Evonne Miller

Rosemary Kennedy

Centre for Subtropical Design

Queensland University of Technology

2

Contents

Contents ............................................................................................................................................... 2 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ 3 List of Tables .................................................................................................................................................. 3

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 4 PUBLIC DOMAIN ................................................................................................................................ 6

Landscape ....................................................................................................................................................... 9 Case Study: ‘City in a Garden’ (Singapore) ................................................................................... 9

Public Art ...................................................................................................................................................... 14 Case Study: Urban Art Initiative (New York) ........................................................................... 15 Case Study: Docklands Integrated Urban Art / Art Walk (Melbourne) ......................... 15 Case Study: The Ponds Estate (Sydney) ..................................................................................... 16

Streetscape .................................................................................................................................................. 18 Case Study: World Class Streets initiative (New York) ........................................................ 18 Case Study: Great Streets - Pavement to Parks (San Francisco)....................................... 21

Views and Vistas ........................................................................................................................................ 23 Case Study: The High Line (New York) ....................................................................................... 23

River Integration ....................................................................................................................................... 25 Case study: River Revitalization (Los Angeles) ....................................................................... 25 Case study: Stream restoration and stormwater management (Oslo) .......................... 26

Urban Space ......................................................................................................................................28 Case study: CheongGyeCheon (CGC) River, Seoul .................................................................. 28 Case Study: Insurgent public space and guerrilla urbanism .............................................. 29

Connectivity ......................................................................................................................................31 Case study: Madrid Rio Project (Spain) ...................................................................................... 31

TRANSPORT DOMAIN ....................................................................................................................33 Pedestrians .................................................................................................................................................. 34

Case study: Pedestrian Priority Program (Buenos Aires) ................................................... 34 Case study: Inner-urban higher density (Brisbane) .............................................................. 35

Cyclists........................................................................................................................................................... 37 Case study: PRESTO project (Europe) ......................................................................................... 38

Public Transport ....................................................................................................................................... 40 Case study: Carpooling (Europe) ................................................................................................... 40 Case Study: Travel-Mode choices, inner-urban higher-density (Brisbane) ................ 41 Case Study: Older Inner-Urban and Suburban Residents (Brisbane) ............................ 43

Traffic ............................................................................................................................................................. 45 Case study: Auckland CBD (New Zealand) ................................................................................ 46 Case study: Congestion charge (London) ................................................................................... 47

Parking .......................................................................................................................................................... 49 Case study: Heifer International Green Parking Lot (Arkansas) ...................................... 49 Case Study: Park at Post Office Square (Boston) .................................................................... 50

References.........................................................................................................................................52 Appendix A ........................................................................................................................................57

3

List of Figures Figure 1: The Place Program - the Project for Public Places (Metropolitan Planning Council 2008, p16)................. 7

Figure 2: Power of 10 Example, Applied to Chicago (Metropolitan Planning Council 2008, p10) ............................. 8

Figure 3: Orchard Central Mall - green roof, walls, colourful sculpture art ............................................................... 10

Figure 4: Orchard Central Mall - green roof, walls, colourful sculpture art ............................................................... 11

Figure 5: Park Connectors – recreation areas (National Parks 2011; Ministry of Finance 2008) ............................ 12

Figure 6: Singapore, open access bus stop and Orchard Road corner (R.Kennedy) .............................................. 12

Figure 7: Sydney art, Melboure Graffitti wall in urban laneway and Santos Place public laneway .......................... 14

Figure 8: NYC Urban Art Program Track - Barrier Beautification............................................................................. 15

Figure 9: Docklands Public Art Walk & John Kelley’s “cow up a tree” (VicUrban 2010) .......................................... 16

Figure 10: Float, 2008 by Susan Milne and Greg Stonehouse (Hall 2009, p.26) .................................................... 17

Figure 11: Manhattan's 9th Avenue (before & after), David Byrne bicycle rack, request a bench ........................... 19

Figure 12: NYC Plaza Program - Pavement to Parks .............................................................................................. 20

Figure 13: Parklets - San Francisco Great Streets Project ...................................................................................... 20

Figure 14: The New York Highline (Hamm 2010; Ivan Baan 2009) ......................................................................... 24

Figure 15: Masterplan projection of the river revitalisation project (City of Los Angeles 2011) ............................... 26

Figure 16: Alna river restoration, storm water management & natural river bed...................................................... 27

Figure 17: CheongGyeCheon river restoration (Susita 2011) .................................................................................. 28

Figure 18: Madrid Rio urban design foot bridges, river regeneration (west8 2011) ................................................. 31

Figure 19: Pedestrian Priority Program (Lostri 2011)............................................................................................... 34

Figure 20: Principle 2, Respect Topography - walkable journeys (Kennedy 2010, p15) ......................................... 36

Figure 21: Cycling in Europe (PRESTO, 2011) ....................................................................................................... 38

Figure 22: Carpooling. 78% of rides, drivers travel alone ........................................................................................ 41

Figure 23: Older Brisbane resident’s mobility patterns – car versus public transport (Buys et al., 2012) ................ 44

Figure 24: The Shared Zone & Accessible Routes (Karndacharuk et al., 2011) ..................................................... 47

Figure 25: Map of Congestion Charging Zone (Transport for London 2009) ........................................................... 48

Figure 26: Heifer International design development ................................................................................................ 49

Figure 27: Post Office Square Section Elevation and Plantings .............................................................................. 51

List of Tables Table 1: Public domain - categories, case studies and region ................................................................................... 6

Table 2: Transport domain - category, case studies and region .............................................................................. 33

Table 3: Inner-urban Brisbane resident’s mode of travel to work, life and leisure locations (n=636) ....................... 42

Table 4: Inner-Urban Brisbane Resident‘s Transport Choices and Concepts of Convenience (n=24) .................... 43

Table 5: Case study category relationship map ......................................................................................................... 5

4

Introduction Internationally, and within Australia, there is an increasing realisation that high

quality public realm – defined as publicly accessible non home and work ‘third

spaces’ such as greenspace and other non-park public spaces including buildings,

streets, corners, pavements, bikeways and squares (Oldenburg, 2001) – is an essential

element of a prosperous, sustainable and liveable city. Indeed, Micallef (2010) argues

that “great cities are judged by the quality of their public realm”.

However, creating and maintaining successful public realm places where “people

want to live, work, play and invest” (CABE Space, 2004) – is a long-term multi-

faceted process requiring collaborative partnerships and active participation from a

wide array of government, industry and community stakeholders. Successful public

realm planning, design and creation involves in-depth and innovative consideration of

a wide array of interconnected factors – including local site conditions, climate,

historical and cultural characteristics, budgets constraints, long-term strategic

priorities and vision, as well as government, industry and user needs and expectations.

For Brisbane, the fast-growing growing capital city in Australia, understanding how

best to support and create public realm spaces within an already densely developed

City Centre is an urgent priority. The South-East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-

2031 predicts very significant population growth: currently, there are over 700,000

workers, one million residents and five million visitors each year, with predicted

increases of 43% in residents, 60% in employment and 60% in visitors. Managing this

rapid growth presents multiple challenges and opportunities, with three defining

characteristics informing the shape Brisbane’s future public realm spaces: it is a river

city, with a subtropical climate (high rainfall, warm weather and humidity) and a

positive, forward-thinking new “World City” mentality (Brisbane City Council,

2011). Fortunately, a growing body of national and international best practice’ help

provide innovative inspiration of how to (re)design the public realm in a modern city

centre.

In this review, we highlight some key learnings and recommendations from

innovative projects across the globe to inform public realm design and help facilitate

active transport in subtropical Brisbane. Traditionally, Australian cities have been

have been based on northern European models. We must look beyond that paradigm

5

to redefine and re-conceptualise our city in a different way, one that values our unique

local identity and climate. In re-designing Brisbane’s public realm, therefore, our

responses must celebrate our unique identity and outdoor lifestyle yet also address the

subtropical climatic reality. This period of rapid urban and climate change offers an

opportunity to prioritise and integrate design features that provide shade and shelter

from sun and summer rain, open and permeable urban environments that facilitate

cooling air movement, and connections to water and nature, so that the urban built

form co-exists within an inviting, functional and memorable natural landscape.

To inform this transformation, this review provides insight into international

experiences and best practices. To date, although there is much practice-based

knowledge, academic studies outlining learnings and recommendations from case

studies (especially in a subtropical context) remain rare. Thus, a range of sources

(industry reports, websites, journal articles and books) have been utilised, with the

table below highlighting how these case studies frequently overlap and illustrate

multiple aspects of the public realm.

Case study category relationship map

Case study

Public Domain Transport Domain

REV

IEW

ED

Lan

dsc

ap

e

Pu

bli

c Art

Stre

etsc

ap

e

Vie

ws

& V

ista

s

Riv

er

Con

nec

tivi

ty

Urb

an

Sp

ace

Ped

estr

ian

s

Cycl

ists

Pu

bli

c Tra

nsp

ort

Tra

ffic

Park

ing

Garden City Urban Art Initiative Docklands The Ponds Work Class Streets Initiative Great Streets - Pavement to Parks The High Line River revitalisation CheongGyeCheon River Stream restoration & storm water management Insurgent public space and guerrilla urbanism Madrid Rio project Pedestrian Priority Program Inner-urban higher density PRESTO program City-wide bicycle commuting program Car pooling Travel-Mode choices in inner-urban HD Older Inner-Urban and Suburban Brisbane Residents Auckland CBD Congestion Charge Heifer International Green Parking Lot Park at Post Office Square

6

PUBLIC DOMAIN

Public domain covers 7 primary categories; these – and the example case studies - are

listed in the table below.

Table 1: Public domain - categories, case studies and region

Category Focus Case study Region

Landscape Vertical landscapes, elevated

gardens, heritage reuse

City in a Garden

Singapore

Public Art Facilitates civic pride, a sense

of ownership, place, and

community identity

Urban Art Initiative

Docklands

The Ponds

New York

Melbourne

Sydney

Streetscape Provide connection, light,

access, recreation and

democratic and symbolic

space. Streetscapes are human

interaction

World Class Streets

Great Streets -

Pavement to Parks

New York

San Francisco

Views & Vistas Views, greenspace,

connectivity, place

The Highline New York

River Integration Emphasises river accessibility

and recreation

River Revitalization

Stream restoration and

management

Los Angeles

Oslo

Urban space Subtropical context if possible Cheonggyecheon

Regeneration

Insurgent public space

& guerrilla urbanism

Seoul

Connectivity Improves design quality,

amenity, legibility and

connectivity to transport

Madrid Rio Spain

As discretionary places, public domain spaces thrive only if people chose to utilise

them and thus give the area vibrancy and ‘buzz’ (Carmona, Heath, Oc & Tiesdell

2010). Fortunately, a wide range of guidelines and theoretical frameworks exist to

guide practice. Perhaps the most well-known framework is the United States based

non-profit planning, design and educational organisation ‘Project for Public Spaces’

approach (Metropolitan Planning Council 2008). The PPS provides an online database

of resources, tools and projects that highlight the value of place-making as a

transformative agenda and the importance of creating and maintaining public spaces.

7

The PPS Place Diagram (see Figure 1) is a tool, which helps people judge any place

and comprises of four key attributes, with both tangible (in blue) and intangible (in

green) characteristics.

– Access & Linkage (visual and physical connections to surroundings)

– Uses & Activities (something to do gives people reasons to visit and return)

– Comfort & Image (safety, cleanliness, supports bodily needs - rest, food, relief)

– Sociability (invites social interaction among friends, neighbours and strangers)

Figure 1: The Place Program - the Project for Public Places (Metropolitan Planning Council 2008, p16)

This approach has inspired many other public realm frameworks (e.g., see Carmona et

al.’s Attributes of Successful Places, 2010), with the PPS also recently advocating the

‘Power of 10’ concept for starting the Placemaking process (see Figure 2). The

argument is that a great place needs at least 10 things to do in it or 10 reasons to be

there and that these - ideally unique - uses and ideas should come from people who

would use the space and be dynamic enough to attract a wide range of user groups,

continue evolving and keep people coming back (e.g., a place to sit, watch sport,

8

touch art, play chess, hear music, purchase food, picnic in silence, learn historic

information, read books, get fit, play with children).

Figure 2: Power of 10 Example, Applied to Chicago (Metropolitan Planning Council 2008, p10)

This section provides insight into each of the specific categories in Table 1, with

space limitations meaning that only 1-2 case studies are provided for each category.

As public realm issues are often interconnected, however, the case studies of

innovative examples from across the globe will frequently provide insight into

multiple different dimensions.

9

Landscape

A priority for contemporary urban spaces is to maintain and integrate natural local

characteristics of the landscape, such as green spaces, water systems, native

vegetation types, patterns, colours, topography, water, wind and biodiversity, into the

design and planning process. Natural and ecological connections, scenic landmarks

and views must be preserved, created and enhanced, with places adopting shapes that

enhance and integrate into the landscape. Communities are supported by recurrent

landscape elements that clearly speak their identity, facilitating awareness of the

presence and beauty of the area whilst residents go about their daily lives (Kennedy,

Hockings & Webster-Mannison 2005).

For Brisbane, typified by a relatively dense urban centre and rapidly growing

population, landscape solutions must acknowledge our subtropical character and

provide a place for rich contact with natural systems and distinctive settings.

Although Brisbane’s image as a vibrant subtropical city is valued by residents and

entices visitors, our high rainfall and humid climate means landscape designs need to

support and enhance our connection to nature and outdoor lifestyle, through

prioritising openness and permeability, water sensitive design, shade and shelter,

natural light and ventilation (Kennedy 2005). The following case study – of the

Garden City of Singapore – illustrates the value of appropriate and innovative

landscape design in a tropical context.

Case Study: ‘City in a Garden’ (Singapore)

A compact city-state of high rise buildings in a tropical/humid climate, Singapore is

world renowned for its lush green inner-city environments and provides a creative

example of urban and landscape design on a large, complex and multifaceted scale.

Through decades of planning and cultivation, which commenced with a modest tree

planting campaign in the early 1970s, Singapore has embarked on an ambitious state-

coordinated effort to become a ‘City in a Garden’. Following a strategy that

prioritises “the primacy of ‘tropicalness’ as a twin strategy of fulfilling public space

as a necklace of continuous green, and of positioning the city (and island nation) in a

unique (imageable) way” (Kiang & Liang, 2009, p232) Singapore has invested

10

significantly in creating a lush, green and eye-catching environment where nature is

closely intertwined with the urban fabric.

Lee Kwan Yew, who began the 1970’s tree planting campaign, reportedly explained

the original rational as: “well kept trees and gardens were a subtle way of convincing

potential investors in the early crucial years that Singapore was an efficient and

effective place. We need the greenery of nature to lift our spirits”. Currently, over

3,318 hectares of Singapore’s land space is devoted to parks/open spaces and satellite

photographs show that (despite population growth of 68 percent) the proportion

covered in greenery has increased from 36% in 1986 to almost half (47%) in 2007

(National Parks 2011). Singapore’s strong vision is for residents to be “stepping out of

our homes into a lush, vibrant garden”, with the National Parks Board tasked to

“conserve, create, sustain and enhance the green infrastructure of our Garden City”.

Pervasive greenery, rich biodiversity and a strong sense of community ownership

have been identified as key priorities, with three different initiatives designed to

optimise and rejuvenate urban spaces for greenery and recreation summarised below.

Skyrise Greenery: To promote skyrise greenery – integrating green roofs, vertical

greenery and gardens into the built-form of the city – National Parks offers a range of

seminars, guidelines and publications (including a virtual site location map and

downloadable walking map currently in development), an awards scheme to recognise

best practice (the Skyrise Greenery Awards) and significant incentives of up to 50%

in subsides (the Skyrise Greenery Incentive Scheme).

Figure 3: Orchard Central Mall - green roof, walls, colourful sculpture art

(http://www.greenroofs.com/blog/tag/singapore/)

One prominent example of skyrise greenery is the Orchard Central Mall (see Figure

3), which won 1st Prize in the 2009 Skyrise Greenery Awards Completed Projects

11

category for outdoor green balconies and extensive greenery, both inside and out.

The 24-hour roof top public garden comprises of lushly landscaped sky gardens,

urban green verandas for dining, a highly visible 13 metre high green wall and a

biological pond that creates the relaxing atmosphere of a water garden. The colorful

artwork (‘Let’s Go to a Paradise of Glorious Tulips’ by Yayoi Kusama) further acts as

a stark contrast to the grey backdrop of the surrounding buildings, creating a

heightened awareness of the location. Similarly, a 50 storey public housing building

built by Singapore's Housing and Development Board (Sky Gardens at Pinnacle

Duxton, 2012) links seven residential tower blocks together with what has been

described as the longest continuous sky gardens in the world.

Figure 4: Orchard Central Mall - green roof, walls, colourful sculpture art

(http://www.nparks.gov.sg/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62&Itemid=85/)

‘Community in Bloom’: This initiative focuses on creating green awareness by

engaging the community with gardening projects, with residents working together to

create beautiful roadside gardens (via planting of unusual plants, of different textures,

colours and sizes) contributes to Singapore’s vivid and memorable landscape (Figure

4). Another similar public engagement exercise is helping engage residents with the

vision and process of transforming Singapore into a ‘City in a Garden’, spearheaded

by an interactive National Parks (2011) website where residents share their

recommendations (to date, these include a desire for night activities when the park is

not so humid and hot, having more wetlands in the city, nature exploration activities

for children and converting the roof top of multi-storey car parks into gardens with

jogging tracks for residents to exercise there).

Park Connectors Network: This project provides additional recreational areas for

jogging, in-line skating and cycling, optimising the use of otherwise neglected land

(e.g., drainage reserves, foreshore and road reserve) by converting them into green

12

corridors that link major parks. There are currently more than 70 km of park

connectors, with 200km to be completed by 2012 – and these new connections will

include lighting, rain shelters and keep-fit stations (see Figure 5).

Figure 5: Park Connectors – recreation areas (National Parks 2011; Ministry of Finance 2008)

Figure 6: Singapore, open access bus stop and Orchard Road corner

(Images: Rosemary Kennedy - Centre for Subtropical Design)

At a more general level, Singapore has utilised specific landscape design

features (shade, shelter, air, views, vegetation) to manage a tropical climate and

facilitate sustainable, active lifestyles. Transit nodes have become important hubs for

public spaces and interactions, with rail above, bus connections below, integrated

shopping and adjunct walkways with large trees creating a shady pathway. Tree-lined

boulevards are common, with trees and buildings similar heights and pedestrian

overpasses facilitating connections. Singapore is a city of great lush boulevards.

Orchard Road proves that huge plantings (in a strip only about 1.5m wide), creating

great dense shade can happily coexist with cars and people and commerce. Figure 6

illustrates this, with the first image showing a covered (shady) bus stop along one of

the main roads in inner city Singapore. As illustrated in the image, the provided

public seats are located on an angle thus allowing permeability, access and

uninterrupted view of the buses as they arrive. The second image is an Orchard Road

13

corner, where cooling greenery is purposely low to delineate pedestrian and car space,

and provide a natural safety barrier yet not interrupt visibility.

There are a number of learnings here for Brisbane:

Singapore’s ‘City in a Garden’ highlights that urban landscape is usually the result

of an accumulation of layers of intervention over time; since the early 1970’s,

policymakers have remained committed to (and invested in) the ‘City in a Garden’

image and branding;

Singapore has worked within existing resource (limited land/higher density) and

climate constraints and turned this challenge into strength, with the lush greenery

and ‘skyrise’ gardens uniquely distinguishing Singapore from other countries;

Singapore has demonstrated that, with commitment and a clear vision, much more

green can be interwoven into the fabric of the city: every structure, building, road

could have a live green component, as vegetation can exist in very small spaces, up

walls, over roofs and around buildings. As we increase residential densities,

Singapore inspires us to remember that we can and must also radically increase

landscape density;

Undertaking a city greening project in a subtropical context is an effective way to

engage the community in sustainable enterprise (such as greenhouse gas reduction)

by fostering active transport connectivity across the city through the use of ‘park

connectors’ in neglected areas.

Singapore’s Garden City powerfully illustrates how green roofs, vertical greenery and

gardens can be actively and innovatively integrated into the built-form of a dense

urban tropical city, providing a memorable and valued experience for visitors and

residents alike. The opportunities for subtropical Brisbane, especially in terms of

‘skyrise’ and vertical greenery, need to be actively explored.

14

Public Art Public art can be a unifying force, facilitating civic pride, a sense of ownership and

place, and community identity. By revealing the unique character and values of a

locality, high-quality meaningful public art can be viewed repeatedly and is designed

to provoke, engage, energize and educate – creating time for individual reflections,

social interactions and a new awareness of a space, its unique history, culture, social

and environmental characteristics. As Becker (2004, p9/14) argued, the reality is that

“many people don’t visit museums or attend the theatre; anybody can experience

public art.... it is a critical part of our existence: our connection with our

environment; with our past, present, and future; and with other human beings”.

Figure 7: Sydney art, Melbourne graffiti wall in urban laneway and Santos Place public laneway

(L to R: City of Sydney 2003; Turpin; Andrew Lecky in Carver 2009; Moulis & Thomson 2012)

Although there are relatively few published case studies documenting the impact of

urban public art, there is a wide range of inspiring examples from practice in Australia

(see Figure 7). For instance, in Sydney, Jennifer Turpin is well-known for her CBD

work, including Tied to tides, whilst Melbourne has the infamous graffiti wall and

Brisbane has the new Santos 24-hour pedestrian laneway displaying our largest public

art work (the laneway is partly open to the environment, and provides an important

natural "connection to the senses" in a subtropical environment, with variation in air

movement and ambient temperature of the day). Although the specific form, role and

design objectives of public art vary, the experience from New York and two high-

15

profile Australian examples (The Ponds and Docklands) highlight how art can help

define a place, but is only truly successful as part of a larger vision.

Case Study: Urban Art Initiative (New York)

Art is integral to New York City’s goal of world class streets, as “artists help to

transform the landscape from ordinary to extraordinary with temporary, unexpected

interventions - colourful murals, dynamic light projections, thought-provoking

sculptures” (New York City Department of Transportation 2012). The Urban Art

initiative works with community organizations and artists to make site-responsive

artwork, with plazas, fences, barriers, footbridges, and sidewalks acting as canvases

for temporary art that remain installed for 11 months. Over 85 projects have been

developed since 2008, with Figure 8 illustrating a project where artists, assisted by

volunteers, produce murals for concrete barriers that typically separate bicycle lanes

from lanes of traffic. Funding is via an application process, with artists eligible to

receive up to US$2,500 toward direct project costs.

Figure 8: NYC Urban Art Program Track - Barrier Beautification

(New York City Department of Transportation 2012)

Case Study: Docklands Integrated Urban Art / Art Walk (Melbourne)

Melbourne prides itself on its creative vitality and identity, with one percent of the

recent Docklands’ development costs allocated for urban art - a $15 million dollar

investment that has created a strong sense of identity as 36 striking large-scale

artworks are situated throughout the space, in parks, promenades and built into the

architecture and landscape. A downloaded self-guided urban art tour engages the

community, outlining the specific locations, objectives and meanings of each artwork

(both integrated into building fabric and stand alone) which reflect themes of the

contemporary urban setting, water, technology, the indigenous, industrial and

maritime history and the future.

16

Figure 9: Docklands Public Art Walk & John Kelley’s cow up a tree (VicUrban 2010)

Figure 9 illustrates the self-guided map and one of the most prominent artworks –

John Kelly’s ‘cow up a tree’, inspired by a court case where ‘art’ was on trial and a

flood swept cattle into trees. An important lesson from Docklands is that despite

significant investment in public art, local residents have criticised the space for being

‘soul-less’, with limited community engagement, recreational greenspace and "no

trees, no birds, no grass, a lack of community but a plethora of structures... a lack of

design and creativity in the streetscape, where 50,000 people walk, exercise,

commute, eat and socialise — or try to" (Dowling 2011, para7). In response to such

concerns, Places Victoria, the City of Melbourne and Lend Lease recently announced

a collaboration to build a civic hub - Dock Square’ (a $12.7 million library and

community centre) to “build a sense of place in Docklands, bringing life and soul to

this growing community" (Victoria Government 2011, para8).

Case Study: The Ponds Estate (Sydney)

Although not strictly a city centre, public art is critical in creating a sense of identity

and community in The Ponds estate, a ‘greenfield’ development 50km north-west of

Sydney. Public art is compulsory in all government residential developments, with the

ten year public art plan of this new master-planned suburb prioritising defining space,

creating a sense of community identity (both nascent and evolving) and providing

points of orientation (Hall, 2009). Perhaps the most well-known artwork is the Float,

created by artists Susan Milne and Greg Stonehouse to explore the presence and

absence of water in the landscape and Sydney’s changing climate. Located in the

midst of a landscaped traffic roundabout, the twelve large sculptured umbrellas are

mounted on metal poles (tallest is 12 metres high) and the LED lighting is

programmed to respond to seasons and rainfall (see Figure 10).

17

Figure 10: Float, 2008 by Susan Milne and Greg Stonehouse (Hall 2009, p.26)

The Float, along with a range of other artworks sited in unexpected places and

varying in scale and intent (monumental versus intimate, serious versus whimsical)

has begun to define the personality of this new urban space, bringing a “unique

sensibility, humour, beauty and fancy to the streets and parks of The Ponds estate... in

a dry landscape, it is an artwork so ironic, so hopelessly optimistic, that to not laugh

in response would appear churlish. This is an artwork which delights all-comers,

successfully fulfilling its role as a key welcome point and identifier of the suburb”

(Hall 2009, p27/29). Thus, the Float works on several levels – it is a strong and very

visible local icon, speaking to the local climatic experience in a humorous manner.

Each of these case studies offers some immediate learnings for Brisbane:

Policies and urban development initiatives must include a significant budget

specifically for public art, although Docklands illustrates how an investment in

public art alone does not automatically create a sense of place: spaces need to

fully evolve, adapt and respond to the needs of local residents.;

To make a strong visual statement that cultural identity and creativity are

valued - and immediately engage residents and visitors - a proportion of public

art pieces must be large-scale, instantly noticeable, in surprising locations and

concentrated in high profile precincts (for instance, the Roma St Parklands art-

walk initiative is less visible from the CBD and thus less widely known);

18

Streetscape Streetscape, the area between the street curb and facade of adjacent buildings, is the

connection between spaces and places. It strengthens the identity of a city, offering a

pedestrian focussed environment that provides “connection, light, access, recreation

and democratic and symbolic space” (Brisbane City Council 2006, p59). Relatively

minor streetscape changes can significantly alter and improve the pedestrian

experience – for example, street trees provide shade for pedestrians, brick zones

visually separate the pedestrian sphere from vehicles, whilst street furniture and

public art (e.g., at key intersections or functional art, such as on rubbish bins) helps

creates a memorable sense of place and gives the streetscape a unique identity.

Streets range from large grand avenues to small, intimate pedestrian streets, with

existing layouts often constraining designs – for example, Brisbane’s city centre

streets are generally narrow and frequently crowded with pedestrians, trees, furniture

and amenities, such as outdoor dining (Brisbane City Council 2006). The challenge is

how best to foster a safe and visually appealing pedestrian environment, address

transportation concerns and also foster business and retail growth. The New York and

San Francisco case studies illustrate how successful streetscape design means

considering the specific local context, qualities, functions and main social, economic,

cultural and/or environmental role of each street.

Case Study: World Class Streets initiative (New York)

Launched in 2007, PlaNYC and multi-faceted World Class Streets initiative is a long-

term plan to create a greener, greater New York, to “re-imagine the City’s public

realm—to develop an urban environment that transforms our streets and squares into

more people-friendly places” (p2). A detailed audit of pedestrian behavior and city

dynamics identified that the streets of New York City had few places for people to sit

and rest, meet and interact or people watch, with a vastly disproportionate amount of

space allocated to parking cars rather than public seating spaces. In response, the

World Class Streets initiative implemented an array of street re-development projects,

including street design changes, public art program, coordinated street furniture,

weekend pedestrian and cycling streets, and safe streets for seniors and students.

19

In a major pedestrian safety initiative specifically for older New Yorkers, Safe Streets

for Seniors evaluates and improves pedestrian conditions in neighbourhoods with

high proportions of older residents. The program was motivated by two key facts: an

ageing population and the fact that those aged 65 and over accounted for 39% of

pedestrian fatalities, despite comprising only 13% of New York’s population. The

changes included retiming pedestrian signals to give older residents more time to

cross the streets, constructing pedestrian refuge island and sidewalk extensions to

shorten crossing distances, upgrading street markings for better visibility, and calming

traffic by reducing the number of travel lanes. A range of other smaller-scale

initiatives, depicted in Figure 11, have included changes to Manhattan’s 9th Avenue

creating a more peaceful sidewalk experience and separating cyclists from motor

vehicle travel lanes), a new public-art inspired design for its public bicycle racks

(from a 2008 international competition) and the request a city bench program - to

increase the amount of public seating on New York City’s streets, New Yorkers can

recommend locations for benches online.

Figure 11: Manhattan's 9th Avenue (before & after), David Byrne bicycle rack, request a bench

(New York City Department of Transportation 2012)

The NYC Plaza Program – turning pavement into parks is designed to improve the

quality of life and walkability the city, and ensure all New Yorkers live within a 10-

minute walk of quality open space. Via a competitive application process, not-for-

profit organizations bid to create neighbourhood plazas, thus transforming underused

streets into vibrant, social public spaces that fit the unique needs and character of each

community (see Figure 12). The city funds the design and construction, with the non-

profit organisation pledging to operate, maintain, and manage these spaces, including

running at least four programmed activities and events at the site (e.g., holiday events,

food or craft markets, temporary public art installations or exhibits, music and

dancing). The revenue generated from these activities is used to manage and maintain

the plaza, with site selection prioritized in neighbourhoods that “lack open space, and

20

partners with community groups that commit to so they are vibrant pedestrian

plazas”.

Figure 12: NYC Plaza Program - Pavement to Parks

(New York City Department of Transportation 2012)

The key feature of this model is that it is creative in resources/materials, driven by

local community demand and relies on minimum capital expense and infrastructure

The fifth round of the NYC Plaza Program opens for applications in Spring 2012 and

has inspired a similar programs across America.

Figure 13: Parklets - San Francisco Great Streets Project (Parklet Impact Study, 2011)

21

Case Study: Great Streets - Pavement to Parks (San Francisco)

Inspired by the NYC Plaza program, San Francisco’s Great Streets program adopted

the Pavement to Parks initiative to also turn underused roads and parking spaces into

public parks – transforming these neglected spaces into hubs of connectivity and retail

and social engagement through the creation of mini-parks or ‘parklets’. Parklets take

two to three parking spaces in a street and transform them into spaces for people to

relax and enjoy the city around them. They are created by building out a platform into

the parking space (so the sidewalk grade is carried into the parking lane), with

planters, landscaping, bike parking, benches, café tables and chairs provided to

provide a welcoming new public space (see Figure 13). The space is open for anyone

but a nearby business or organization pays for, builds, and maintains the parklet.

San Francisco sites are selected on the basis of five criteria: a stretch of underutilized

road, lack of nearby public space, community interest, the ability to improve

pedestrian and bicyclist safety, public attractions like cafes, and a neighborhood

steward willing to keep an eye on things.. These small, fast-tracked community-

driven parks have been described as “a highly visible experiment in urban planning,

where the community can test-drive the design and provide input before it becomes

permanent. It took only a few months to get sign-off on the plaza design and three

days to install it” (Lee, 2009). Since the first parklet was built in 2010, more than 20

have been built in San Francisco; whilst there was some early resistance to reclaiming

public space from cars, this has eased and parklets are in heavy demand.

To assess the impact of these parklets, a pre-and post evaluation was conducted at

three sites (public seating prior to the parklet was limited to a few seats at one bus

stop) to measure the influence of parklets on pedestrian traffic, street-life, and nearby

businesses (San Francisco Great Streets Project, 2011). Pedestrian counts, stationary

activity counts, pedestrian and business surveys showed that the number of people

stopping to spend time there had increased. One site reported a 191% increase in the

number of people and average foot traffic increasing 44% (304 to 438 people per

hour), although there were no significant foot traffic changes at the other sites. Two

sites experienced higher ratings on both being ‘clean’ and a ‘good place for

socializing and fun’, with one site declining in these attributes. Of the seven

businesses that completed the survey, although only one identified business growth as

a result of the parklet, none had any significant concerns about the parklet, loss of

22

parking, or other impacts on their business (San Francisco Great Streets Project,

2011). Learnings from these programs can be directly applied to Brisbane:

NYC and San Francisco are utilising build-outs to literally carve space out of the

road for people, with the Pavement to Parks initiatives highlighting how unique

design typologies can help reshape public spaces. Enhancing Brisbane’s space-

constrained inner-city requires a willingness to experiment and support

innovation, with initiatives such as this worth exploring and trialing;

Key to the success of Pavement to Parks is the expedited approval/design process

and explicit partnerships with business/non-profit organisations, which provides a

financial incentive for local retailers to care for and engage with the streetscape.

As the first installation sets the tone, however, it is critical to select a first

location/partnership that will be successful;

Safe Streets for Seniors highlights one way to utilise census data to inform and

guide design changes that will enhance daily life for residents.

23

Views and Vistas Views and vistas are a critical element of the public domain, enlivening urban

landscapes and providing visual cues that connect residents and visitors to key

landmarks, reinforce cultural identity, create links within and beyond the immediate

area and help navigation around the city. At the same time, we need to acknowledge

that pedestrians often cannot see far in front of them, especially when in a crowded

urban environment. In addition, overhead canopies, whilst critical in a subtropical

climate for shade and shelter, will often cut out longer distance views. Innovative

design is need to address these issues, so that existing views and vistas that are

unique, memorable and distinctive to the city are protected, enhanced and promoted.

The New York High Line is a good example of this, creating what has now become

an undeniably memorable city landmark and exemplar of public realm greenspace.

Case Study: The High Line (New York)

The New York High Line is a high profile inspiring example of creating usable public

space from wasteland – turning an historic freight train track (closed in 1980) into a

unique one-mile elevated green urban park and nature walkway high above busy city

life (Figure 14). It offers an innovative example of old form serving new function,

providing a creative connection to the past and illustrating how genuine industrial

artefacts can be preserved and redesigned to enhance contemporary urban

greenspaces. The High Line is the second of its kind worldwide (Paris’ Promenade

Plantée was converted from a rail viaduct into an elevated park) and offers several

important lessons for communities, industry and policymakers.

First, it was the initiative of non-profit ‘grassroots’ community-based organisation

“Friends of the High Line”, founded in 1999 to try and preserve and transform the

space when the historic train track structure was under the threat of demolition. After

a decade of lobbying, the park was opened in 2009 – at a cost of US$152 million,

with $44 million provided by Friends of the High Line (who continue to work to raise

private funds to cover approximately 90 per cent of maintenance and operating costs).

Second, the innovative design provides a unique experience, providing interesting

views of the city skyline and encouraging exploration of its surfaces, plantings, views,

history and the other people also enjoying the space. There are strict safety rules, with

no dogs, bikes or skateboards allowed due to the fragility of the plantings and limited

area of the pathways (Friends of the High Line, 2010). Finally, the High Line has

24

triggered wider urban renewal in the neighbourhood, attracting 2 million visitors a

year (Amateau 2010) – a quarter of which are from outside the United States

(Foderaro 2011, p.21) – and inspiring an estimated 50 major residential projects worth

as much as US$5 billion (Russell 2009). This is an outstanding return, given that the

City of New York invested approximately US$150 million.

Figure 14: The New York Highline (Hamm 2010; Ivan Baan 2009)

There are two key learnings here for Brisbane.

The Highline provides an extremely creative example of re-use and re-design –

how to turn an existing neglected existing feature of the built environment into a

unique green space and tourist attraction. Brisbane needs to re-examine our own

neglected spaces and how they could be transformed;

Despite questions about the long-term viability and appeal (the space is extremely

narrow, function limited and operating costs relatively high), the Highline

highlights how determined and engaged residents can work productively with

policymakers to shape their local environment.

25

River Integration A guiding principle of public realm design is to acknowledge the unique local context

and circumstances; in Brisbane, the river is a picturesque defining element of the city,

CBD areas and residents’sense of local identity.

Globally, cities are rediscovering their rivers, which have often been neglected and

disengaged from the urban form, abandoned by relocated industrial facilities and

blocked by highways and concrete walls. The contemporary focus is to transform

industrial and derelict land by rivers into new public realm spaces, which in turn

frequently triggers urban revitalization and intense new commercial, recreational,

residential and tourist activities (Kashef 2008). Having an urban riverfront also

provides an opportunity to improve flood protection, via multifunctional and

adaptable flood defenses, as well as educating residents about the value of healthy

waterways and their local waterfront. The Oslo case study highlights issue of stream

restoration and stormwater management, whilst the River Revitalization (Los

Angeles) case study demonstrates the importance of future planning for effective

integration, reclamation and reengagement with the waterfront, illustrating how as

well as accessibility, recreation and economic benefits, recent urban riverfront

revitalization efforts often have a stronger ecological and educational focus.

Case study: River Revitalization (Los Angeles)

In 2007, and after 10 years of river revitalisation activism (ASLA 2009), the

ambitious Master Plan for restoring the Los Angeles River was announced. At a

proposed cost of US$2 billion dollars the proposal includes replacing extensive tracts

of industrial land with parks as well as cleaning up the river whilst maintaining flood-

control measures (Hymon 2007). At 51 miles long, the LA River is expansive and

flows through the second largest urban region in the US and into two of the world’s

busiest port regions (City of Los Angeles 2011). The urban impact of the river is

phenomenal, with the LA river corridor home to over 1 million people, 390,000

housing units, 35,000 business and more than 80 schools (City of Los Angeles 2011).

A key feature of the Master Plan is the long term, phased approach, with the Plan

intended as a 25-50 year blueprint. The implementation process will be an ongoing

26

‘improvement’ process. As a flood control measure, the river was channelized by the

Army Corps of Engineers over 70 years ago and as such the long term goal is to

progressively transform the current concrete lined river into public green space

(ASLA 2009). Figure 15 helps to illustrate the staged process. The first image to the

left shows the river currently, the middle image is the near future and the far right is

during the latter stages of the project. The Master Plan revolves around six key

recommendations; Revitalize the River, Green the Neighbourhoods, Capture

Community Opportunities, Create Value, Develop Community Planning Frameworks

based on the River, Create a River Management Framework (ASLA 2009). Critical to

the project is the improvement and maintenance of overall water quality.

Figure 15: Masterplan projection of the river revitalisation project (City of Los Angeles 2011)

In all, the civic piece of infrastructure is an opportunity to radically transform the city

(ASLA 2010). With an estimated 239 projects, most of which will be small (Hymon

2007), the LA revitalisation project is designed to provide numerous opportunities for

local communities and businesses to engage with the redevelopment and

transformation process. Community engagement currently occurs at various points

along the river with 28-acre demonstration garden sites released annually. In 2011,

200 acres of agricultural land was opened up for ‘land-banking’ for produce as well as

educational purposes to help young people learn and understand about the process of

growing food (ASLA 2010).

Case study: Stream restoration and stormwater management (Oslo)

A prime example of successful integration of stormwater management and stream

restoration is the Alna River in Norway. The Alna is Oslo’s biggest river and is

located between a housing estate and business park, with the phased restoration was

aimed at improving the greater Oslo watershed area (Atelier Dreiseitl 2004). The

project aimed to “combine high ecological and hydrological criteria in the technical

management of water system with a design that maximizes the potential of an

27

appealing outdoor space” (Atelier Dreiseitl 2004, para2). A key feature of the site

redevelopment was the transformation of the river in a more “wild and natural corner

of the park”; in its regenerated form, the river now flows as a natural restored river

bed - see Figure 16.

Figure 16: Alna river restoration, storm water management & natural river bed

Both these river revitalisation project provide some learnings for Brisbane:

The LA example illustrates the complexity of revitalization at a scale that is

currently well beyond anything occurring in Australia. The LA River in particular

is one of the few ‘tangible commons’ that crosses “geographical, economic and

social boundaries in the City” (ASLA 2009). The LA Master Plan and proposed

costing breakdown could be utilised as a template for future planning in Brisbane,

particularly toward smaller scale river revitalisations along the Brisbane river in

the city, as well as along urban fringe (river feeder) regions;

The Alna example highlights one way to address and naturally integrate

stormwater harvesting into an appealing open space and park.

28

Urban Space Great public urban spaces are often described as the “living room of the city”, where

people come together to enjoy their city and each other (The Centre for Design

Excellence 2011). These spaces vary in arrangement, appearance and functionality,

offering a “dynamic mix of people, landscape, buildings and the interactions between

and among them” (Brisbane City Council 2006, p178). The Project for Public Spaces

(2008) suggests successful spaces share four qualities: they are accessible, space is

comfortable, sociable and people are engaged in activities there. In addition, new and

revitalised spaces, as well as older wonderful and enduring urban spaces (e.g., Miami

Beach’s Lincoln Road Mall built in 1960), must have a lasting and recognizable

image, be distinguishable from other nearby environments and encourage a sense of

community and friendly activity among both residents and visitors. These case studies

– of Seoul’s CheongGyeCheon (CGC) River and guerrilla urbanism – highlight the

critical role of constructed and ‘found’ public spaces in resident’s lives.

Case study: CheongGyeCheon (CGC) River, Seoul

Seoul is one of the most populated modern cities in the world. With a 610+ year long

history and over 10 million people, rapid economic growth and development-

orientated urban planning has resulted in traffic congestion, environmental pollution

and spatial disparity. Thus, as an effort to enhance the quality of central-city living

and transition from a car-oriented city to one that was human-oriented, in 2003 the

ageing elevated freeway was torn down and replaced by an urban stream and park

(see Figure 17).

Figure 17: CheongGyeCheon river restoration (Susita 2011)

The restoration of the CGC River cost US$384 million and is “regarded as a major

success in urban renewal and beautification.... the restoration of the Cheonggyecheon

29

is part of an expanding environmental effort in cities around the world to ‘daylight’

rivers and streams by peeling back pavement that was built to bolster commerce and

serve automobile traffic decades ago” (Revkin 2009). By adapting new design

approaches to old ideologies, the CGC River promotes an eco-friendly urban design

and has exhibited vast increase in tourism interest, quality of air and local

environment. Restoration of the original seasonal river has had significant

environmental and ecological improvements: reduced ambient urban temperatures (by

10-13%) and dust (7%), increased fish (4 to 25), birds (6 to 36) and insects (15 to

192) species, and the wind blowing faster along the stream generates a cooling effect

(Revkin 2009). Expanded bus services, higher parking fees and restrictions on cars

meant that the loss of some vehicle lanes did not impact traffic speeds, which have

actually improved.

Public access to the new river was also an important consideration in the planning

process, with terraces, lower-lever sidewalks, river parks and public art incorporated

in several locations to enhance public enjoyment of the new space. The revitalised

area now attracts an average of 90,000 pedestrians (locals and visitors) to the river

banks. The CGC restoration and regeneration has forever affected the political, social

and economic fabric of the CGC region, with the people of Seoul “inspired by the

drastically refreshing change”. Like all restoration and regeneration projects,

development is an ongoing process and current future plans for the stream include a

focus on digital (mobile tour guided applications and a digital aquarium) and cultural

projects (art studios, festivals, fashion shows) (Noh 2006). There are two key lessons

for Brisbane. First, the speed at which this transformation took place; in under 2

years, the road was removed and the natural stream was flowing again. Furthermore,

the success of the planning and design features of what is otherwise a small river

relative to the population that is using it. This particular piece of urban planning,

landscaping and design has proven environmental impacts through passive cooling

(breezes along the water), pollution (dust) reduction as well as the positive cultural

and social impacts through social interactions and community connectivity.

Case Study: Insurgent public space and guerrilla urbanism

Emerging research is also exploring how individuals and groups are reclaiming and

remaking contemporary cities through what has been termed ‘insurgent’ public space

or guerrilla urbanism. Essentially, from community gardening in vacant lots, street

30

dancing in Beijing and the transformation of parking spaces into temporary parks

(PARKing Day), ‘insurgent public spaces’ transform the city environment and

challenge conventional views of how urban areas are defined and used (Hou, 2010).

This practice has been termed ‘found’ or ‘loose space’, where residents liberate public

spaces from their original intended function and impose their own chosen function on

the space. For example, Chen (2010) describes how in China, as their city densifies

and limits public open space, active older Beijing residents are appropriating urban

infrastructure – “busy median strips, concrete areas between highway flyovers,

parking lots, sidewalks, grounds just outside the gates of parks, stadiums and schools,

as well as spaces insides parks” (p22) - to practice a range of old and new activities,

primarily dancing (traditional and disco), chess, rollerblading and jogging. She argues

that dancing has become a critical mechanism through which ageing residents

“maintain communal ties, enjoy new-found leisure time, and engage in physical

activity while maintaining a sense of social continuity in the midst of urban renewal,

relocation and urban transformation in post-reform China” (Chen 2010, p21).

Similarly, in Los Angeles, James Rojas (2010) has pioneered the notion of "Latino

New Urbanism" to explain how the preferences and culture of Latino immigrants has

changed their community, public spaces and neighbourhoods. Rojas (2010) explains

how Latinos, who typically arrive with few resources and settle in economically

depressed city areas lacking parks and adequate housing, bring with them different

uses of the urban environment and retrofit the built form to meet their economic and

social needs. He describes how you know when you have arrived at a Latino

neighbourhood because of the large numbers of people outdoors, and these lively

streets – full of pedestrians and commercial activity from street vendors - fosters

social exchanges and sustainable mobility. These street vendors temporarily transform

the urban form, offering a rhythmic activity to the streets, whilst the use of paint adds

a strong visual dimension (graffiti, store signs, murals) and allows Latinos to

“inexpensively claim ownership of space or express themselves” (Rojas 2010, p38).

Such activities transform the auto-orientated landscape into one that is pedestrian-

focused. Understanding how different ethnic groups utilise and claim public space

provides with insight into how users needs and expectations motivate them to re-

shape spaces.

31

Connectivity

Good physical, social and visual connectivity - linking public spaces, transport nodes

and major desired destinations - facilitates both the sustainability and ‘liveability’ of

our urban spaces. An easily navigable, pedestrian–friendly and connected urban

structure – which connects pedestrians, cyclists, public transport, resting places,

sheltered paths, clear signage and major destinations – creates an interesting

experience and facilitates active transport, social participation and feelings of safety

(Brisbane City Council 2006). As the Madrid Rio project from Spain illustrates,

revitalised spaces can be simultaneously address a range of public realm dimensions.

Case study: Madrid Rio Project (Spain)

One of the largest examples of river reclamation and regeneration for green space re-

adaptation and use is the Madrid Rio Project, a combined infrastructure and public

space project that focused on improving the public realm (see Figure 18).

Figure 18: Madrid Rio urban design foot bridges, river regeneration (west8 2011)

This urban space near the Manzanares River in the middle of Spain’s capital had been

neglected for years, but – at a cost of US$5 billion – a section of Madrid's inner ring-

32

road (the M-30) was moved underground and a 10 kilometres long area of parkland

created to revitalise the area. This shift of moving roads underground and exposing

the river has enabled the neighbourhoods that were “cut off from the city centre” to

“knit together” (Kimmelman 2011). There are four core themes to the project:

recovery of the river, including the addition of an urban beach; the Pine Forest,

extending the existing green areas and creating new ones (e.g., 26,000 new trees, bike

paths, children parks, spaces for senior citizens); development of sports/recreational

spaces and urban infrastructures along the whole length of the river. In addition to

being a great example of public green space integrated into previously urban concrete

jungle, the park entails a much larger transformation, with dozens of light rail stations

that connect to various districts either side of Madrid thus enhancing connectivity

between people across towns and by demographics. One resident explained the

positive impact on her life:

At 73, she said she has lived for more than a half-century in an apartment in a housing

project nearby, suffering the fumes and noise from the highway. “When the highway

was here, I sat on my sofa and watched television all day,” she told me. “Now I feel

healthy again because I walk with my friends in the park for hours.” (Kimmelman

2011)

There are immediate lessons here for Brisbane: first, this project has many aspects of

transferability into other cities. Brisbane has many qualities similar to Madrid

including climate and accessibility to the river. In many respects Brisbane already has

key infrastructure in place with footbridges and overpass access across the river.

However a key distinguishing factor for the Madrid project is the scale and level of

integration of communities at all stages along the river, with the primary successes of

the Madrid Rio due to its strong vision, scale and level of urban connectivity.

33

TRANSPORT DOMAIN

Transitioning from a car-dependent culture to one that facilitates public and active

transportation is a significant change and challenge for planners, policymakers,

designers and the wider community, requiring a different way of thinking and a

different way of living. This is especially true in Brisbane, where less than a fifth of

residents utilise public transport as their main form of travel to work or study and the

majority - over three-quarters - rely on a private motor vehicle (ABS, 2008). Thus, the

following national and international case studies provide some insight into the

complex and interconnected barriers to, and facilitators of, sustainable mobility and

active transport, including walking, cycling and public transit (bus, ferry, train), as

well as the role of design and roadside elements (e.g., sidewalks, street trees, street

amenities, public art, special paving materials) in traffic calming, roadside safety and

enhancing the urban experience (Dixon et al., 2008, p5).

Table 2: Transport domain - category, case studies and region

Category Focus Case study Region

Pedestrians Safety, active transport Pedestrian Priority Program

Inner-urban higher density

Buenos Aires

Brisbane

Cyclists Active transport PRESTO Project

City-wide Bicycle

Commuting Program

Europe

Copenhagen

Public transport Accessible and inclusive,

connections to city and

regions

Carpooling

Travel-Mode choices in inner-

urban higher-density

Older Inner-Urban and

Suburban Brisbane Residents

Europe

Brisbane

Brisbane

Traffic Density, congestion,

pollution

Auckland CBD

Congestion charge

New Zealand

London

Parking Availability, greenspace,

urban design

Heifer International Green

Parking Lot

Park at Post Office Square

Arkansas

Boston

34

Pedestrians Traditionally, the needs of pedestrians and the relatively mundane ‘everyday’ activity

of walking have been neglected. Fortunately, the current focus on fostering active

lifestyles and addressing climate change through sustainable mobility has created

increased interest in the pedestrian experience – from transforming car-dominated city

centres into lively street systems for pedestrians to building walkways. Good walking

networks are said to comprise of ‘5Cs’: connected (to each other, public transport,

schools, work, leisure destinations), convivial (pleasant, social, safe and inviting to

use), conspicuous (clear and legible signs/routes), comfortable (high quality pavement

surfaces, away from traffic, opportunities for rest and shelter) and convenient (direct,

convenience, pedestrian prioritised over car). In addition, in the subtropical context, it

is critical that walkable pedestrian journeys and routes are adequately shaded, from

both the sun and rain. The following case studies highlight these issues.

Case study: Pedestrian Priority Program (Buenos Aires)

The Pedestrian Priority Program (PPP), part of the Healthy Mobility initiative

sponsored by the City of Buenos Aires Ministry of Urban Development, is designed

to “put pedestrians first, focusing heavily on generating bold changes to public spaces

to strengthen the diversity of activities, and promote social and functional recovery”

(Lostri, 2011, p1). The three primary objectives of the PPP are to promote pedestrian

traffic, encourage more active lifestyles and improve environmental conditions of the

city, home to over 13 million people.

Figure 19: Pedestrian Priority Program (Lostri 2011)

Pedestrians were designated as preferential users, with narrow streets and public

spaces redesigned to better meet their needs. For example, enlarged and levelled

sidewalks were created to facilitate pedestrian circulation without obstacles, new trees

planted, street furniture and lighting improved, and car traffic flow restricted to the

35

minimum necessary. Lostri (2011) argues that the PPP has been successful, with

many more pedestrians present during the day and night, with Figure 19 illustrating

how the inner city urban area has now become a congregation point where people can

meet and mingle. In turn, the increased presence and interaction of people in the

urban space, has strengthened local small businesses.

Case study: Inner-urban higher density (Brisbane)

Recent Brisbane research has highlighted the critical importance of convenience and

convivial walkways for encouraging walking as a transportation choice. In qualitative

research exploring 24 inner-city Brisbane residents’ transportation practices and

perceptions, Buys and Miller (2011) documented how transport choices were

frequently determined by what was perceived - and experienced - as the quickest and

easiest option for reaching a destination, while taking into account destination and

time of day. For these inner-urban residents, walking was considered the most time-

efficient option of accessing nearby services, predominantly recreational facilities

(e.g., gym, pool, park), restaurants and smaller shops (e.g., newsagent, hairdresser),

although there was strong feeling that the design of these higher-density

neighbourhoods often impedes walking.

Residents described how high levels of heavy traffic (such as semi-trailers and other

trucks), degraded and narrow footpaths and a lack of dedicated bike lanes could make

walking dangerous; one participant described how a resident was recently killed and

another injured crossing at the lights, which they believe are set to prioritise traffic

flow and literally do not allow enough time for people to cross the road. Female

residents also explained that choosing to walk was moderated by the time of day and

perceived safety: “there are some pockets that are pretty isolated… and it’s [walking]

not worth the stress of it” (Female, Highgate Hill, Int. #5). One resident described

how they enjoyed their inner-urban lifestyle, but walking was not easy:

So the whole notion of some sort of built environment that incorporates parklands,

greeneries, walkways, bike ways, restaurants, village type atmospheres within a city

area, I really, really like the sound of that because when people have that sort of

amenity, it tends to contribute to a relaxed lifestyle. But people don’t have to travel

too far to get things they need in order to live, they might choose too but they don’t

have to.. But, in order for me to get from my house [walking], the footpath is quite

literally three feet wide. And it’s a major arterial road. Traffic, buses, trucks roar up

and down that road. And the council has not done a very good job at maintaining the

36

footpaths. It’s quite badly undulating and because it’s mainly bitumen, potholes in it,

tree root ridges on it. And ah, it is really not a good walk way (M, West End, Int #1).

These case studies highlight how Brisbane needs to prioritise the local pedestrian

experience, both in high traffic city centre areas and in other busy neighbourhood

localities. However, unlike Buenos Aires, which is warm and flat, Brisbane has a

subtropical and hilly typology which can impede pedestrian mobility. Thus, the

physical realities of walking in hilly topography in heat and humidity needs to inform

design, with Kennedy (2010) emphasizing that the urban design yardstick of the 400-

metre, ‘five-minute’ walk should be modified to 300 metres (or less) depending on

the steepness of the terrain (see Figure 20). She argues that convenient, shaded

pathways are needed to facilitate pedestrian movement patterns and that street

crossings and public transport stops should be spaced more closely for pedestrians’

convenience.

Figure 20: Principle 2, Respect Topography - walkable journeys (Kennedy 2010, p15)

37

Cyclists A growing body of research has demonstrated a wide range of individual and

community predictors and benefits of cycling for recreation and commuting, ranging

from addressing climate change, incorporating sustainable practices into daily

lifestyle, lack of another transportation choice or cost reduction of transportation,

opportunity to improve physical fitness and just enjoying the activity. Yet, although

some European countries report that 10-20% of journeys are made by bicycle,

Australia’s modal share is a very low 1.56% of commuter journeys and 4.8% of day-

to-day non-work or study trips (Infrastructure Australia 2009).

Thus, there is significant scope to increase the modal share of cycling in Australia –

particularly for the 40% of Australians commuting less than 10km to their place of

work or study (Infrastructure Australia 2009). However, a wide array of objective

(e.g., cycling infrastructure, routes, facilities, access and linkage and, climate,

topography, traffic conditions) and more personal and socially subjective (e.g.,

distance, traffic safety, convenience, cost, valuation of time and exercise, family

circumstances, habits, peer group acceptance) factors intertwine to influence the

cycling decision. The following case studies provide critical insight into how best to

redesign communities to support the development of a cycling culture, although the

reality, as a recent European project designed to build the cycling culture argued, is

that:

“There is no “one-size-fits-all” model for making cities cycle-friendly. Not all tools

and measures that work well in one city will have the same impact – or even the same

priority – in another city. Good practices from other cities can rarely simply be

copied, but need to be adapted to your local context. This means that building cycling

policy needs to start with a thorough understanding of the local traffic situation,

destinations, needs and desires, culture and attitudes in your city. Each city must set

out a vision, create a strategy and find its own balance between infrastructure and

promotion activities” (European Union 2011, p3).

38

Case study: PRESTO project (Europe)

Although cycling is a key transport mode in some European countries (Netherlands,

Denmark, parts of Germany and Belgium), in much of Europe “cycling is still more

potential than reality” (Urbanczyk, Fenton & Dufour 2011, p3). From May 2009 to

January 2012, the European Union-funded PRESTO project explored and promoted

cycling for everyone as a daily transport mode in cities all across Europe. PRESTO

focussed on three key pillars: improved infrastructure; planning targeted promotion to

encourage the use of bicycles; and pedelecs (pedal bicycles with an electric assist to

support pedalling).

Figure 21: Cycling in Europe (PRESTO, 2011)

PRESTO classified cities’ current cycling culture based on two indicators: cycling

conditions and number of cyclists. ‘Starter’ cities have a cycling share of up to 5%,

‘climber’ cities between 5% and 20% and ‘champion’ cities higher than this. With

predominantly car-oriented road design, insufficient cycling infrastructure and

comparatively few daily cycling trips, starter cycling cities face the biggest challenges

in developing a cycling culture and “need courageous political leadership to support

(and finance) cycling for transportation when the majority of the population still

prioritises car travel over bicycle travel” (Urbanczyk et al. 2011, p6). As Brisbane

can be classified as a ‘starter’ cycling city, here we report the recommendations and

learnings from European ‘starter’ cycling cities Zagreb (Croatia) and Tczew (Poland).

In Zagreb, the focus was on the implementation of bicycle infrastructure (lanes and

parking) and the promotion of cycling (including pedelecs) as an attractive and cost-

effective transport mode, with campaigns targeted at the general public and students,

who are not yet habitual car drivers and have “good potential to take up cycling and

help create a critical mass that can foster the culture of cycling” (p6).

39

In Tczew, the focus was on a bicycle lane network, intergenerational cycling and

having high profile celebrities and professionals (e.g. city officials, deliveries,

postmen, teachers, etc.) trial the Pedelecs. PRESTO concluded that infrastructure was

the best promotion, explaining that “if riding a bike in your city is not safe enough, it

is not realistic to try to increase cycling numbers by means of promotion alone; few

people will be convinced, and many will feel such a policy is irresponsible” (p7).

They described a range of quick-win low cost solutions (contra-flow cycling in one-

way streets, cycle advisory lanes, advance stop lines, a neighbourhood-by-

neighbourhood approach) and “invisible” cycling infrastructure (supportive of not

exclusively beneficial to cyclists such as traffic calming, speed management, traffic

reduction, junction treatments). PRESTO also suggested improving the “cool factor”

image of cycling, by promoting Pedelecs to demonstrate that bikes are “modern and

high-tech and not at all an old-fashioned vehicle” (Urbanczyk et al. 2011, p9) and

accessible to all, regardless of ability, health, age, hills or sweat.

The implications for Brisbane, a starter cycling city, are clear: the infrastructure is

key, as is building a critical mass of cyclists. The difficulties associated with

choosing cycling in a subtropical climate with a hilly terrain and busy traffic should

not be under-estimated, however. Facilitating a cycling transformation will require

significant investment in cycling infrastructure and public education programs to help

address and overcome these challenges.

40

Public Transport Despite increasing concerns about sustainability and urban congestion, the majority

(81%) of Australian adults report that they never use public transport. Transport in

Australia is dominated by the automobile, with the Australian Bureau of Statistics

(ABS, 2008) reporting that three-quarters (75%) of adults residing in capital cities use

a private motor vehicle as their main form of travel to work or study. Only a fifth

(19%), regularly use public transport, with non-users saying that there is no service at

a convenient time (28%) or that they prefer the privacy/comfort of their car (27%).

Such findings are consistent with previous Sydney research that identified the top five

reasons in residents deciding to drive less and use public transport more were, in order

of impact: door to door travel time competitive with car travel, improved safety and

security, greater flexibility of routes, comfort and convenience, and price of trip

(NRMA Insurance Limited & Clean Air 2000 Project Team). All of these issues

remain salient today, and must be addressed to trigger a massive shift to public

transport. The Carpooling program in Europe, as well as two recent studies on

Brisbane resident’s travel-mode choices provides insight into the challenges and

potential solutions

Case study: Carpooling (Europe)

Whilst governments around the world seek to implement a range of projects to reduce

car dependency, traffic congestion and improve air quality, individuals are making

their own contributions through personalised interconnected solutions such as

carpooling. Carpooling is also referred to as ride sharing and is often used by people

when travelling to and from work where public transport is difficult to access. It is a

simple yet effective way of reducing single vehicle occupancy.

Of particular note is the Carpooling network ‘carpooling.com’. This is the number

one carpooling network in Europe connecting people in “5000 cities and 45 countries

so they can share their rides”. Drivers can offer available seats and passengers can

book a ride, from a computer, mobile phone or social network. Carpooling.com has

over 3.5 million registered users and 1 million people transported every month.

Estimates indicate that this European Carpooling Network has saved over

375,000,000 litres of gas (99 Million gallons) (carpooling.com 2012).

41

Figure 22: Carpooling. 78% of rides, drivers travel alone

(US Department of Transportation 2003 cited in carpooling.com 2012)

To date, however, the uptake of traditional carpooling schemes has been limited by

their inflexibility and the annoyance of having to schedule ahead of time, as daily

plans vary due to flexible work hours, sickness, errands in different parts of town etc,

as well as more practical concerns about sharing with ‘strangers’. Australian estimates

suggest car-pooling could cater for up to 15% of trips, although there is a sense that

the existence of ride partner matching software alone will not serve to build a

ridesharing network and must be augmented by outreach (awareness raising

campaigns), incentives (guaranteed ride home, prioritized parking) and facilities such

as carpooling lanes that can determine the form and viability of carpooling initiatives

(Brereton et al., 2009). Interestingly, some research indicates that the primary reason

people are motivated to car share is for the “personal financial gain” (Ledbury 2005 in

Degruyter 2006, p.2), and although ‘helping the environment” is a motivational factor

for many, it is ‘socially unpopular’ to state you are carpooling for the environment.

Case Study: Travel-Mode choices, inner-urban higher-density (Brisbane)

In a recent Brisbane study, Buys and Miller (2011; 2012; Therese, Buys, Bell &

Miller, 2010) explored the transport perceptions and practices of residents from eight

inner-urban higher-density suburbs, located within six kilometres of the CBD and in

close proximity to a variety of sustainable public and active travel options (Highgate

Hill/West End, Southbank, Teneriffe/New Farm, Kangaroo Point, Fortitude Valley,

Hamilton). The research, which involved surveying 636 residents (Buys & Miller,

2012; Therese et al., 2010) and in-depth interviews with 24 residents (Buys & Miller,

2011), illustrated that although public transport was perceived as accessible (87%),

and convenient (80%), car use continues to be relied on for many journeys.

42

Table 3 illustrates that whilst agreeing that public transport options were accessible,

when asked to indicate how they ‘typically travelled to a range of work, life and

leisure locations (e.g., work, recreational facilities, restaurants, supermarket, friends,

theatre etc) from a list of nine potential travel options (car - travel alone, car pool,

motorcycle/scooter, bus, train, walk, taxi, ferry or bicycle), the car remained a

predominant transport choice. The car was the preferred mode choice for certain

journeys and destinations, including visiting friends/relatives (80%), going to the

supermarket/grocery store (78%), medical services (63%), chemist (56%),

bottleshop/liquor shop (53%), or live theatre (46%). Walking was the most common

mode for journeys to restaurants (71%), recreational facilities (gym, pool, park; 61%),

or the newsagent (61%). For work journeys, the car was the most common mode

choice (41%), although public transport (38%) and walking (31%) were also

commonly used (note that percentages can add up to more than 100%, as they were

able to indicate more than one travel mode for their typical journey).

Table 3: Inner-urban Brisbane resident’s mode of travel to work, life and leisure locations (n=636)

Dri

ve

Walk

Pu

bli

c

Tra

nsp

ort

PT -

Bu

s

PT -

Fer

ry

PT -

Tra

in

Bic

ycle

Taxi

Work 41% 31% 38% 24% 10% 4% 7% 4%

Restaurants 47% 71% 25% 11% 12% 2% 1% 17%

Recreational Facilities 33% 61% 11% 6% 3% 2% 7% 0%

Newsagent 35% 61% 3% 3% 0% 0% 2% 0%

Visit Relatives/ Friends 80% 24% 26% 13% 6% 7% 3% 5%

Supermarket 78% 33% 10% 8% 2% 0% 3% 2%

Bottleshop (Liquor Shop) 53% 47% 3% 3% 0% 0% 1% 1%

Medical Services 63% 33% 15% 11% 3% 1% 2% 2%

Chemist 56% 47% 8% 6% 2% 0% 2% 1%

Live Theatre 46% 26% 27% 14% 10% 3% 1% 9%

Note: Most popular mode is in bold. Total percentages may be greater than 100%, as could indicate multiple travel modes

The qualitative interviews revealed that although residents repeatedly identified the

location of their dwelling - in terms of convenience to the city centre and desired

amenities (e.g., places of work, transit, recreation, restaurants and shopping,

43

walkways and bikeways) – as a key reason for their satisfaction with where they

lived. Transportation choices are justified through complex definitions of convenience

containing both utilitarian and psycho-social elements, wth three key themes

identified: time-efficiency; single versus multi-modal trips; and distance to and

purpose of journey, as well as attitudinal, affective and symbolic elements related to

transport mode use (see Table 4).

Table 4: Inner-Urban Brisbane Residents’ Transport Choices and Concepts of Convenience (n=24)

Case Study: Older Inner-Urban and Suburban Residents (Brisbane)

Recent Brisbane research has also focussed specifically on the unique experiences of

older suburban residents. Buys, Snow, van Megen and Miller (2012) utilised person-

based GPS, in-depth interviews, and daily travel diaries to document the activities of

24 older adults (average age 70 years) who resided in either inner urban high density

(n=12) or low-density outer-suburban areas (n=12). Although two expressed an active

dislike for public transport (overcrowding and personal space/privacy concerns), for

these older adults, the main key barriers were convenience and health/mobility (see

transport patterns in Figure 22).

Time-efficiency of transport

modes

Multi-modal trip making Distance to and purpose of

journey

Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative

Walking Easy option

for nearby

services

Good for the

environment

Healthy

enjoyment

and pleasure

Safety issues

at night

Safety issues

on paths next

to heavy

traffic routes

Difficult due

to distance,

hills, and sub-

tropical

climate

Easy option

for nearby

services

Not viable for

long distances

and in hot

weather

Not safe at

night

Difficult for

grocery

shopping trips

Public

Transport

Quick option

for travel to

inner-city

Relaxing and

reading time

Unreliable

service and

delays

Lack of

seamless trip

and waiting

time for

connections

Easy to travel

to inner-city

work

Waiting time,

infrequent

night services

Unreliable

Difficult for

grocery

shopping trips

Private

Car

Quick option

for travel

outside local

area

Cost of

parking in

city

Traffic,

especially in

peak times

Only quick

option for

multi-travel

Cost of

parking

Traffic,

especially in

peak times

Safe for night

travel

Easier for

grocery

shopping trips

Impact on

environment

44

Figure 23: Older Brisbane resident’s mobility patterns – car versus public transport (Buys et al., 2012)

Although all but one of the participants lived within a 5-to 10-minute walk of a public

transport node, many described how ‘they don’t all go the way that you want to go’,

with a related issue the lack of availability: ‘while I was working it was convenient,

then they cut it out after 9 o’clock’ and speed “you are not going to believe this but I

start walking into the city and quite often I beat the bus into the city. So why pay a bus

fare?. Difficulty in accessing timetables, as well as the unfamiliarity and time-

consuming nature of public transport in comparison to other modes of transport, were

considered inconvenient. Health and mobility issues also created significant barriers

to public transport usage for these older residents, with two describing how the

topography surrounding their residences made it difficult for them to access their

nearest transport node: “I could not walk to the bus stop because I live on a hill’.

Another two highlighted difficulty in carrying heavy groceries, the limited access to a

toilet and the little help provided by drivers: ‘if it’s a good driver and he goes right to

the kerb I can get off [the bus] easily, but usually they don’t’’ and ‘the bus drivers

never really helped you on with walkers . . . you had to stumble on yourself’. These

findings highlight how the location of public transport nodes needs to consider

topographical barriers, as well as the unique needs of different users – older residents,

workers, teenagers and young families.

45

Traffic Traffic congestion is a daily hassle in most urban cities, with private road vehicles in

Australia increasing from 40 per cent of total urban passenger movement in the late

1940s to approximately 90 per cent today. In 2005, the Bureau of Transport and

Regional Economics estimated that the ‘avoidable’ cost of congestion for Australian

capitals was approximately $9.4 billion - $3.5 billion in private time costs, $3.6

billion in business time costs, $1.2 billion in extra vehicle operating costs, and $1.1

billion in extra air pollution costs (BTRE, 2007). Auto-centric design in inner-urban

areas can also cause significant conflict with pedestrian and cycle movement,

especially where pedestrian and traffic areas merge (CABE, 2007). Globally, cities

are addressing traffic issues differently with most prioritising urban infrastructure that

is less dependent on private vehicle use and facilitates active transport options, such

as walking, cycling and public transport.

Several recent Brisbane studies have highlighted the impact of increasing traffic on

residents. In focus groups with regular users of Brisbane public transport, Chamorro-

Koc, Miller, Smith (2010) documented how traffic, as well as issues of cost and

convenience, affected the decision to use public transport. Commuting by car was not

seen as a cost-effective option because of the high-cost of inner city parking. From a

convenience perspective, high and unpredictable traffic levels mean that public

transport (especially the train) was favoured. One car households had to utilise public

transport, with the following quotes typifying responses: “I wouldn’t pay for parking

but I also don’t have access to a car. My husband needs to use the car. We just have

one car” and “If I knew it was going to be peak hour, trains were easier because the

roads block up a lot”, Public transport users felt infrequency and unreliability were

key barriers impeding the uptake of public transport, explaining how the annoyance of

waiting for delayed buses (due to traffic) was an increasingly common occurrence:

“Of waiting and waiting and waiting when I go home in the evenings. It’s very

disheartening, I suppose….these days, it’s happening at least once or twice a week.

The traffic is slowly getting worse and worse and worse.”

“We’ve had some shockers in the last few weeks of buses not showing up for an hour

in the evening and we have to wait… the bus gets caught in a jam somewhere else and

it can’t get there. A couple of times waiting for an hour, once waiting for an hour and

a half to get home which I get very unhappy about because I have young kids at

home” .

46

In other research exploring the liveability of inner urban higher density localities,

Buys and Miller (2011; 2012), residents described how many of the transport nodes

and shopping and eating areas were located near busy arterial roads, creating

disconnected pathways for pedestrians. Traffic had ‘right of way’ along these roads

and pedestrians were required to wait for traffic in order to access these locations.

One interview participant from Hamilton explained that a nearby road where many

shops, restaurants, cafes and other amenities were located was close but not easy to

access on foot due to the heavy traffic flow on the major road. This makes crossing

the road difficult and has led to fatalities and injuries.

“Racecourse Road is easy to get to [but] that’s offset by the traffic … About every

twenty seconds a big tipper with a trailer goes thundering up… monster trucks. But it

is a problem and we have had one resident killed crossing the lights just here to

Racecourse Road. Knocked over and killed by a car, and another one severely

injured... He’s an older man, and they set the traffic lights for pedestrians that you’ve

almost got to run across because they’re trying to keep the traffic moving down

Kingsford Smith Drive. Older people just can’t move quickly and so it’s a bit

dangerous being a pedestrian and crossing the road from here to the other side” (#13).

Clearly, managing these traffic issues is a key challenge for Brisbane, with the

following case study demonstrating some innovative solutions for improving the

relationship between traffic and the public realm.

Case study: Auckland CBD (New Zealand)

The Rugby World Cup 2011 was the catalyst for a CBD transformation exercise in

Auckland, where the Shared Space concept was introduced to reduce the current

dominance of the motor vehicle and the driver. Three sites were chosen, with network

cameras utilised to continuously record both ‘before’ (October2010) and ‘after’ (June

2011) data of pedestrian and vehicle activity over a two-week period, along with a

web-based perception survey assessing whether the road space configuration serves

the users with respect to the five objectives of shared space (place for activities,

pedestrian priority, economic impetus, vehicle priority, safety for all users;

Karndacharuk et al., 2011).

This data is still being analysed, but Figure 24 illustrates how the delineator band

design will shift user segregation from the conventional split of pedestrians (using

footpath) and vehicles (travelling on road) to an additional separation (Accessible

47

Routes) for those who are reluctant to share the space with motor vehicles, such as

young children, older people and people with disabilities (the blind, visually and

mobility impaired). The Shared Zone is provided for all types of users and activities,

whereas the Accessible Route of minimum 1.8m in width on both sides of the street is

provided for these more vulnerable users, with the zones demarcated by a 300mm

wide tactile delineator band. Whilst space restrictions make this approach difficult to

implement in Brisbane, it highlights how contemporary practice is prioritising both

pedestrians and the unique needs of more vulnerable users.

Figure 24: The Shared Zone & Accessible Routes (Karndacharuk et al., 2011)

Case study: Congestion charge (London)

As our urban environments become increasingly ‘dense’ governments and councils

are looking towards different methods in an attempt to alleviate traffic congestion and

over reliance on private motor vehicle. One controversial option is that a charge is

applied to certain kinds of vehicles who travel into particular ‘zones’ at certain times

(see Figure 25). If cars enter a ‘Congestion Charge Zone’ (CCZ) traffic area, they will

be charged and will be required to pay a fee. London has made one of the most well-

known (and controversial) policy decisions when, in an attempt to become the world’s

leading pedestrian city, they introduced congestion pricing in 2003. Traffic in the city

centre was reduced by 15–20%, with a 6% increase in bus passengers during CCZ

48

hours and the revenue utilised for mass transit and public realm improvements

(Transport for London 2009).

Figure 25: Map of Congestion Charging Zone (Transport for London 2009)

The London system provides discounts and incentives for people who drive a ‘green’

vehicle, with an electric vehicle eligible for a 100% discount and able to drive for

free. Whilst a scheme such as CCZ could be viewed as a viable congestion

implementation method in the short term, the value of such as system in the longer

term is questionable; Transport for London (2010) reports that congestion has risen

back to “pre-charging levels” but they also indicate that it “would be much worse

without the charge”.

The lesson for Brisbane in this case study is the importance of looking for effective

and sustainable alternatives to reducing congestion. Whilst the CCZ has reduced the

number of cars on the roads during certain hours, ongoing increases in congestion are

also evident. However, in terms of affordability and time to implement, this system

does not place a great demand on the urban infrastructure and it has been proven to

reduce congestion. With the increase in private vehicle use in Brisbane and the rapid

growth of our urban infrastructure, considering implementing a CCZ to particular

regions or city zones or at certain times might provide an opportunity to seek

additional revenue to fund active transport options (train, walking, cycling) whilst

also reducing traffic on our roads. A related alternative is to provide tax or other

benefits for CBD-based businesses that stagger work starting times or implement

flexible work at home policies, thus reducing congestion at peak travel time.

49

Parking Although almost every private car trip requires at least two parking acts and cars

spend approximately 80% of the week parked, relatively little transport research has

focussed on issues of parking supply, management or cost (Marsden, 2006). In recent

years, the focus has been on understanding the role of parking and whether high

parking costs might motivate adoption of active and public transport, with recent

Brisbane research highlighting how some older participants drive everywhere except

the CBD because the parking is too expensive (Buys et al., 2012). The following case

studies illustrate innovative approaches to managing parking, from increasing the

sustainability of the design to integrating a public park on the rooftop.

Case study: Heifer International Green Parking Lot (Arkansas)

In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Solid

Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) has initiated a series of pilot projects to

test innovative approaches to address environmental issues such as pollution

prevention, recycling, and land revitalization. A recent project - the Heifer

International Green Parking Lot (2007) in downtown Little Rock – focussed on

developing an integrated green parking lot and urban wetland. Typically, parking lots

are large areas of unattractive pavement; a “green” parking lot, on the other hand, can

provide aesthetic (noise reduction, visual appeal, landscaping, enhances pedestrian

experience), environmental (permeable paving, natural drainage landscape,

stormwater best management practices, recycled materials) and economic (reduce

capital and overall facility maintenance costs) benefits.

Figure 26: Heifer International design development

50

Situated on the banks of the Arkansas River in Downtown Little Rock, this

brownfield site was polluted from more than 100 years use as a rail yard. Through

innovative landscaping and irrigation, Heifer International (a non-profit sustainable

community development organization located) used a grant from OSWER to create a

4.2-acre, 337-space parking lot comprising of a series of small “green” parking plazas

(high traffic aisles and driveways are concrete, gravel pave in parking stalls, minimal

brick pavers in entrance) that move storm water through a vegetated runoff collection

system that collects and cleanses storm water before returning it to the environment

(constructed wetlands help create a more visually pleasing aesthetic and offer food

and shelter to native wildlife - ducks, water-snakes, dragonflies, butterflies, turtles and

indigenous plant life) (Industrial Economics 2007).

Native trees and vegetation are substituted for chemically dependent green lawn and

dominate the parking area, with the organisation supporting alternative transport and

commuting by subsiding public transport, an on-site bike rack and an internal

commuting program (six premium parking spots set aside for carpooling or hybrid

vehicles). For its response to issues of land use and site ecology, it was awarded a Top

Ten Green Projects in America 2007 award by the American Institute of Architects’

Committee on the Environment. The total initial cost was US2.5 million, with annual

operating costs of US$47,850 (see Appendix A or Industrial Economics (2007) for

specific comparisons of conventional and the green Heifer parking lot costs).

Case Study: Park at Post Office Square (Boston)

The slogan at Boston's Post Office Square is "Park above, park below", with a 1.7-

acre park (Norman B. Leventhal Park) sitting atop an underground parking garage.

Fees from the garage repay capital costs and ongoing maintenance, meaning the park

is supported, structurally and financially, by the 1,400-space parking garage. This site

transformed an ordinary city block into one of financial, aesthetic and community

success, with the park/garage design receiving more than 20 planning and architecture

awards. Located in the heart of Boston’s financial district, in an environment of few

vacant sites for the addition of green spaces and surrounded by high rise buildings, the

project replaced an existing deteriorating multi-level car park. It was developed by a

public-private partnership, lead by an active non-profit consortium of local businesses

“Friends of Post Office Square”. The deep excavation, extra supports needed for soil

51

and difficulties acquiring the site meant the garage was one of the most expensive

ever built, at approximately US$34,000 per space.

Figure 27: Post Office Square Section Elevation and Plantings

Placing the park above the car park (Figure 27) successfully encourages and

prioritises pedestrian access, while still accommodating vehicular parking. The open

green space “provides a landmark for orientation and allows surrounding buildings to

be seen”, and through careful selection of trees, bushes, and flowers provides “a

garden for all seasons” with varying colour each month (e.g., red maple leaves in

October, red holly berries in January snows; Friends of Post Office Square 2008). The

park also respects and reflects the surrounding buildings, history and environment, by

incorporating local art, replicating and mimicking details of nearby structures, and a

sculptural water fountain for summer fun. Since the project’s completion, many

surrounding residences and businesses have adapted to incorporate the park, usually

through the inclusion of direct access to the public facility.

The designers attribute the success of the park to “strong leadership, building

coalitions between downtown and neighbourhood interests, inclusion of

representatives of a broad spectrum of interests in the planning process, use of

volunteer advisory boards for technical as well as design issues, visiting and learning

from other similar projects, careful programming and articulation of design

requirements, structuring a competition to select a design team rather than design,

careful attention to detail, and excellent management of the project after completion”

(The Bruner Foundation 2006). Brisbane can learn from both these case studies,

which highlight innovative ways in which the sustainability, functionality and visual

appeal of parking spaces can be enhanced.

52

References

Introduction

Brisbane City Council, 2011. Draft Brisbane access and inclusion plan 2012-2017: Achieving universal inclusion of people with disability in the life of Australia's new world city, Brisbane City Council,, Brisbane, <www.brisbane.qld.gov.au>.

CABE space, 2004. Manifesto for better public spaces, <http://www.westmidlandsparksforum.co.uk/documents/CABESpacemanifesto.pdf>.

Micallef, S., 2010. 'Toronto's ever changing skylines', in N Dunton and H Malkin (eds), A Guidebook to contemporary architecture in Toronto, Douglas & McIntyre, Vancouver, pp. 175-184.

Oldenburg, R., 2001. Celebrating the third place: inspiring stories about the "Great Good Places" at the heart of our communities, Marlowe & Company, New York.

PUBLIC DOMAIN

Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T. and Tiesdell, S., 2010. Theoretical framework: Attributes of successful places, Second edn, Taylor & Francis, Oxford.

Metropolitan Planning Council, 2008. A Guide to Neighborhood Placemaking in Chicago, by Project for Public Spaces (PPS), Placemaking Chicago, <http://www.placemakingchicago.com/cmsfiles/placemaking_guide.pdf>.

Landscape Kiang, C.H. and Liang, L.B., 2009. New Asian Public Space: Layered Singapore. Urban Design International

14, pp. 231-246. Kennedy, R., 2005. Response to the Brisbane City Centre Draft Master Plan, Centre for Subtropical Design,

Brisbane.

Kennedy, R., Hockings, J. and Webster-Mannison, M., 2005. Principles of subtropical design for detached houses, The Centre for Subtropical Design, Brisbane.

Kennedy, R., 2010. Subtropical Design in South East Queensland: A Handbook for Planners, Developers and Decision-Makers, QUT, Brisbane.

Kolesnikov-Jessop, S., 2011. 'An Urban Jungle for the 21st Century', The New York Times, <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/business/global/an-urban-jungle-for-the-21st-century.html?pagewanted=all>.

Ministry of Finance 2008. Ministry of National Development (MND), Government of Singapore,, <http://www.mof.gov.sg/budget_2008/expenditure_overview/mnd.html>.

National Parks 2011. Our Garden City, Singapore Government, <http://www.nparks.gov.sg>.

Russell, J.S., 2009. 'Arts Ban in Stimulus Bill is Stupid Economics', Bloomberg, <http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aq.l988k3gOI>.

Public Art

Becker, J., 2004. 'Public Art: An Essential Component of Creating Communities', Americans for the Arts, <http://artsusa.org/pdf/networks/pan/becker_communities.pdf>.

Carver, S., 2009. 'Melbourne Living', City Lights, <http://www.citylightsprojects.com/press/citylights>.

City of Sydney 2003. Tide of tides, NSW Government, <http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/cityart/detail.aspx?id=SOM202SC>.

Dowling, J., 2011. 'Lack of 'soul' has Docklands tenant ready to leave', The Age 28/9/2011, <http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/lack-of-soul-has-docklands-tenant-ready-to-leave-20110927-1kvgz.html>.

Hall, D., 2009. Planning, Public Art and the Making of Community - the Ponds [online]. Art Monthly Australia, 220, pp. 26-29.

Kubler, A., 2007. Fifteen years of Urban Art Projects, QUT Art Museum, Brisbane.

Moulis, A. and Thomson, S. 2012. Santos Place by Donovan Hill, Architecture AU, <http://architectureau.com/articles/santos-place/#img=0>.

Todd, K., 2009. Public Art: A Case Study at Nundah Community Health Centre, Queensland. Australasian

53

Medical Journal 1, pp. 115-120.

VicUrban, 2010. Docklands Public Art Walk, VicUrban, Melbourne, <http://www.docklands.com/cs/Satellite?c=VPage&cid=1182927626493&pagename=VicUrban%2FLayout&site=Docklands>.

Victoria Government, 2011. 'A new civic hub unveiled for Docklands ', Media Release, <http://premier.vic.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/2771-a-new-civic-hub-unveiled-for-docklands-.html>.

Streetscape

Brisbane City Council, 2006. Brisbane City Centre Master Plan 2006: A vision for the future of our city's centre, Brisbane.

Brkovic, M.B. and Milakovic, M., 2011. Planning and designing urban places in response to climate and local culture: A case study of Mussafah district in Abu Dhabi. SPATIUM International Review 25, pp. 14-22.

Lee, L., 2009. 'Planting in the streets: San Francisco turns underused roads into public parks', The Architect's Newspaper, <http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=3813>.

New York City Department of Transportation 2012. Pedestrians & Sidewalks: Urban Art, The City of New York, <http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/sidewalks/urbanart_prgm.shtml>.

San Francisco Streets, 2011. Parklet Impact Study San Fancisco Great Streets project, San Francisco.

Views & Vistas

Amateau, A., 2010. 'High Line rolls up numbers; Vistors top 2 million mark', The Villager, vol. 79, no. 44, <http://www.thevillager.com/villager_362/highline.html>.

David, J. and Hammond, R., 2011. High Line: The inside story of New York City's park in the sky, Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

Foderaro, L.W., 2011. 'Record $20 Million Gift to Help Finish the High Line Park', The New York Times, <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/27/nyregion/20-million-gift-to-high-line-park.html>.

Friends of the High Line 2010. High Line, Friends of the High Line, <http://www.thehighline.org/>.

Hamm, H., 2010. High Line (Chelsea), Blogspot.com, Sunday June 27, 2010, Blog,

<http://languageandplaceshighline.blogspot.com/>.

River Integration

Atelier Dreiseitl 2004. Stream restoration combined with a stormwater management demonstration park, www.dreiseitl.de, <http://www.dreiseitl.de/index.php?id=526&lang=en&choice=22&ansicht=text>.

ASLA, '2009 Professional Awards: Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan', ASLA, <http://www.asla.org/2009awards/064.html>.

ASLA, 2010. Interview with Mia Lehrer on Revitalizing Communities, ASLA.org, <http://dirt.asla.org/2010/04/15/interview-with-mia-lehrer-on-revitalizing-communities/>.

City of Los Angeles 2011. Los Angeles River Facts, lariver.org, <http://www.lariver.org/>.

Kashef, M., 2008. Reclaiming Urban Riverfronts: Creative Urban Design Intervention. Journal of Creative Work 2, pp. 1-3.

Hymon, S., 2007. 'L.A. will take its river to a new level', Los Angeles Times, February 2, 2007, <http://articles.latimes.com/2007/feb/02/local/me-riverplan2>.

Noh, S.H., 2006. 'Chenggyecheon Restoration In Seoul', paper presented to Minato Water Meeting, Tokyo, Japan.

Revkin, A.C., 2009. 'Peeling Back Pavement to Expose Watery Havens', The New York Times, <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/world/asia/17daylight.html>.

Connectivity

Brisbane City Council, 2006. Brisbane City Centre Master Plan 2006: A vision for the future of our city's centre, Brisbane.

EDAW 2012. Manchester city centre regeneration, rudi.net, <http://www.rudi.net/node/17478>.

Transport Policy Unit, 2010. Transport Strategy for Manchester City Centre, by MCC, Manchester City

54

Council.

Urban space Chen, C., 2010. 'Dancing in the Streets of Beijing: Impoverished Users within the Urban System', in J Hou

(ed.), Insurgent Public Space: Gurrilla Urbanism and the Remaking of Contemporary Cities, 1st edn,

Routledge, London, pp. 21-35.

esmadrid 2012. Parks and Leisure Centres: Madrid Rio, esMADRID.com, <http://www.esmadrid.com/en/madridrio>.

Hou, J., 2010. Insurgent Public Space: Guerrilla Urbanism and the Remaking of Contemporary Cities,

Routledge, London Rojas, J., 2010. 'Latino Urbanism in Los: A Model for Urban Improvisation and Reinvention', in J Hou (ed.),

Insurgent Public Space: Guerrilla Urbanism and the Remaking of Contemporary Cities, Routledge,

London.

Department of Infrastructure and Transport: Major Cities Unit, 2011. Creating places for people an urban design protocol for Australian cities, by Australian Government, Australian Government,, <www.urbandesign.gov.au>.

DoIaTMC Unit, 2011. Creating places for people an urban design protocol for Australian cities, by Australian Government, Australian Government,, <www.urbandesign.gov.au>.

Ercan, M.A., 2010. 'Less public than before? Public space improvement in Newcastle city centre', in A Madanipour (ed.), Whose Public Space? (e-book), Routledge, Oxon, pp. 21-50.

Kimmelman, M., 2011. 'In Madrid’s Heart, Park Blooms Where a Freeway Once Blighted', The New York Times, vol. Art & Design, viewed 25 January 2011, <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/arts/design/in-madrid-even-maybe-the-bronx-parks-replace-freeways.html?pagewanted=all>.

Madanipour, A. (ed.) 2010. Whose Public Space?: International Case Studies in Urban Design and Development, Routledge.

Metropolitan Planning Council, 2008. A Guide to Neighborhood Placemaking in Chicago, by Project for Public Spaces (PPS), Placemaking Chicago, <http://www.placemakingchicago.com/cmsfiles/placemaking_guide.pdf>.

The Center for Design Excellence 2011. Elements of Urban Design, Urban Design, <http://www.urbandesign.org/elements.html>.

Thompson, C.W. and Travlou, P., 2007. Open space: people place, Taylor & Francis, New York.

West8 2011. Madrid Rio, west8.nl, <http://west8.nl/projects/madrid_rio/>.

TRANSPORT DOMAIN

ABS, 2008. Australian Social Trends: Public Transport Use for Work and Study, by ABS, Australian Bureau of Statistics, <http://abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Chapter10102008>.

Dixon, K.K., Liebler, M., Zhu, H., Hunter, M.P. and Mattox, B., 2008. Safe and Aesthetic Design of Urban Roadside Treatments, NCHRP, Washington.

Pedestrians

Buys, L. and Miller, E., 2011. Conceptualising convenience: Transportation practices and perceptions of inner-urban high density residents in Brisbane, Australia. Transport Policy 18, pp. 289-297.

Department for Planning and Community Development (DPCD), 2009. Croydon Pedestrian Priority Plan, by David Lock Associates and Traffix Group, Maroondah City Council.

Lostri, H., 2011. 'To put pedestrian first in the heart of Buenos Aires. Pedestrian Priority in the Central Area', paper presented to The International Conference on Walking and Liveable Communities, Vancouver, 3-5 October.

Cyclists

AGMA, 2006. Greater Manchester Local Transport Plan 2 (LTP2): Accessibility Strategy, Manchester.

Infrastructure Australia, 2009. Cycling infrastructure for Australian Cities: background paper, by Australian government, Infrastructure Australia.

55

Murphy, E. and Usher, J., 2011. 'An analysis of the role of bicycle-sharing in a European city: The case of Dublin, Ireland', paper presented to ITRN2011, Cork.

R Urbanczyk, B Fenton and D Dufour, 2011. Presto: Promoting cycling for everyone as a daily transport mode, by European Union, Intelligent Energy Europe, <www.presto-cycling.eu>.

Public Transport

Brereton, M., Roe, P., Foth, M., Bunker, J. and Buys, L., 2009. 'Designing Participation in Agile Ridesharing with Mobile Social Software', paper presented to OZCHI 2009 Proceedings: Design: Open 24/7, Melbourne.

Buys, L. and Miller, E., 2011. Conceptualising convenience: Transportation practices and perceptions of inner-urban high density residents in Brisbane, Australia. Transport Policy 18, pp. 289-297.

Buys, L. and Miller, E., 2012. Residential satisfaction in inner urban higher-density Brisbane, Australia: role of dwelling design, neighbourhood and neighbours. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management pp. 1-20.

Buys, L., Snow, S., van Megen, K. and Miller, E., in press. Transportation behaviours of older adults: An investigation into car dependency in urban Australia. Australasian Journal on Ageing pp. 1-7.

DeGruyter, C., 2006. 'Investigating a CBD-wide carpooling scheme for Melbourne', paper presented to 29th Australasian Transport Research Forum, Gold Coast.

NRMA Insurance Limited and Clean Air 2000 Project Team, 1996. Shaping Sydney's transport - a framework for reform : discussion paper, City Planning NSW, Sydney.

Therese, S., Buys, L., Bell, L. and Miller, E., 2010. The role of land use and psychosocial factors in high density residents' work travel mode choices: Implications for sustainable transport policy. World Review of Intermodal Transportation Research 3, pp. 46-72.

Transport - Roads & Maritime Services 2011. Car pooling, NSW Government, <http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/usingroads/traveldemandmanagement/carpooling.html>.

Traffic

BTRE, 2007. Estimating urban traffic and congestion cost trends for Australian cities, Working Paper No.71, Department of Transport and Regional Services,, Canberra, <http://www.btre.gov.au/publications/56/Files/wp71.pdf>.

CABE, 2007. This way to better streets: 10 case studies on improving street design, London, <http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/Documents/Documents/Publications/CABE/this-way-to-better-streets.pdf>.

Chamorro-Koc, M., Miller, E. and Smith, P., 2010. The complexity of urban public transport and technologies: User’s reflections, Queensland University of Technology: School of Design, Brisbane.

Karndacharuk, A., WIlson, D. and Tse, M., 2011. 'Shared Space Performance Evaluation: Quantitative Analysis of Pre-Implementation Dat', paper presented to IPENZ Transportation Group Conference, Auckland, March.

Transport for London 2009. Congestion Charge Zone, Transport for London, <http://www.tfl.gov.uk/>.

Transport for London 2010. Benefits, Transport for London, <http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/congestioncharging/6723.aspx>.

Parking

Friends of Post Office Square 2008. Norman B. Leventhal Park, Friends of Post Office Square,

<http://www.normanbleventhalpark.org/contact.html>.

Industrial Economics, 2007. Green Parking Lot Case Study: Heifer International, Inc., US Environmental Protection Agency,, <http://www.epa.gov/region6/6sf/pdffiles/heiferparkingstudy.pdf>.

Lee, L., 2009. 'Planting in the streets: San Francisco turns underused roads into public parks', The Architect's Newspaper, <http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=3813>.

Power, A. 2009. Pavement to parks, San Franscico Planning Department, viewed 26 January 2012, <http://sfpavementtoparks.sfplanning.org/index.htm>.

Roth, M., 2009. 'Finding unused pavement for parks and plazas in Lower Potrero', SF.STREETSBLOG.ORG,

<http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/05/22/finding-unused-pavement-for-parks-and-plazas-in-lower-potrero/>.

56

57

Appendix A

58

59

60

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research report was prepared by the Centre for Subtropical Design, Queensland University of

Technology for Lat27 for the preparation of the Urban Renewal Brisbane (Brisbane City Council) City

Centre Public Realm and Active Transport Study, 2012.

If any information is required about this work, please contact the Centre for Subtropical Design; details

below.

February 2012

Key Contact:

Associate Professor Evonne Miller

Queensland University of Technology

e.miller@qut.edu.au

0410 263 046

Rosemary Kennedy

Director, Centre for Subtropical Design

r.kennedy@qut.edu.au

+61 7 3138 1249