2006 International Federation of Landscape Architects  eastern region conference
25 – 27th May 2006, Darling Harbour, Sydney Australia

 

URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK PLANS
~ GOOD IDEA, BAD OUTCOME?

Alun Chapman FAILA

>> Abstract

The following critique is one Practitioner’s review of the outcomes of the Victorian Government’s Pride of Place Programme and its emphasis on the use of the Urban Design Framework Plan as its principal instrument.

The Urban Design Framework is one of the most significant advances in the application of urban design theory of the past 20 years. Successful overseas, this urban design tool has managed to attract the eye of various Australian governments as a means of initiating urban change at a relatively low initial cost. In particular, successive governments in Victoria have enthusiastically embraced this model, and commissioned a number of Framework Plans under the ‘Pride of Place’ programme. However, now that the 6-year programme is largely ended and the outcomes known, it is evident that this excellent initiative did not quite live up to its considerable early promise.

Under ‘Pride of Place’ the primary, and most laudable, aim of the Framework Plan was to encourage the development of new thinking for old places (be they streets, plazas, towns or cities), with the express purpose of creating tangible improvements over a set period of time, (usually 15-20 years). From the beginning the emphasis was on the importance of the Framework Plan as a means of creating change over time.

THE VICTORIAN CONTEXT

The Department of Infrastructure (DOI) instituted the Pride of Place Programme in Victoria in 1997 to “demonstrate and promote integrated urban design outcomes in Victoria’s urban centres”. It began with a pilot programme in 1997 –1998 where a total of $2m was allocated and continued with $9m over the next 2 years with an extension providing some further minor funding in 2003. The Programme is now largely complete.

The funding was allocated under the following categories:

  • Urban design frameworks

  • Urban design advice

  • Capital works

The Programme was launched with much publicity by the then Kennett Liberal Government, and continued with a similar level of political focus under the Bracks Labour Government.

Under the documentation released to support the Programme, the Urban Design Framework is described as:

“a design tool that provides physical interpretation of local visions and strategies. It is about managing change and setting new directions for integrated development of the urban environment. The framework should identify opportunities and constraints across a broad range of issues including:

  • Areas of change

  • Areas of high potential for improvement

  • Strategic opportunities to change the image and function of an area

  • Areas of significant character or interest

Of particular note were the recommendations of the values that Urban Design Frameworks should embrace:

  • Conservation

  • Community

  • Physical attractiveness

  • Interface resolution

  • Social cohesion

  • Economic prosperity

  • Cost-effectiveness

  • Sustainability

Adherence to these values was extolled as a means of achieving high-quality urban design and architecture, that:

  • Reflects the particular characteristics, aspirations and cultural identity of the community

  • Enhances liveability, diversity, amenity and safety of the public realm, and

  • Promotes attractiveness of towns and cities within broader strategic contexts.

Under the subsequent Planning Note 3, released in 2002, which resolved some of the confusion that had begun to develop, Urban Design Frameworks were officially defined as:

“Strategic planning tools that set out an integrated design vision for the desired future development of Municipal Strategic Statements and Planning Schemes to practical urban design action at the local level”.

Further definition within the Planning Note outlined that the Framework Plan should:

  • Provide a thorough contextual analysis

  • Look beyond the boundaries of the brief

  • Source existing strategies and studies

  • Illustrate existing opportunities and constraints

  • Work from the broad scale to the detailed

  • Respond to major stakeholders

  • Incorporate major infrastructure issues

  • Provide an implementation strategy, and

  • Present material in an understandable and graphical form.

Of particular importance to their success was the list of skills required to satisfactorily undertake Framework Plans, including urban design, architecture, landscape architecture, planning, transport planning, cultural planning, economic impact assessment, infrastructure, public safety, marketing and heritage.

THE SUCCESS OF THE PROGRAMME

In other words, for the first time, government in Victoria was talking about the wider urban design context, and the skills needed to understand the urban realm. In the past this had been covered by the Master Plan, but this was often a blunt and ill-defined tool, which tended to overly focus on the built form, the landscape or the traffic but rarely assessed all of these components as a whole, or included the vital elements of people and time.

The major point of difference between the Framework Plan and the Master Plan was that the Framework Plan was seen to involve a more holistic approach to problem solving - one that attempted to draw together a range of professionals and their individual skill-sets to investigate the many and complex issues that make up a ‘place’. In addition there was a more pronounced emphasis on built outcomes, on people as the end-user and, long overdue, the acknowledgement of the importance of the effects of time. The Framework Plan also placed a greater reliance on public consultation than had been the case in the past and actively promoted the involvement of the public in the design process.

To some it had echoes of social engineering, but to others the Framework Plan was a catalyst with the potential to generate real change through the application of sound urban design principles (although ‘New Urbanism’ was sometimes referenced as the driving ethos - it would be more accurate to refer to it as a re-application of the age-old ideas of Urbanism). To all, however, it was acknowledged that the underlying ‘driver’ was to be good design, and that the community should be informed of the design intent through the development of a ‘Vision’.

The Programme’s emphasis on urban design as the primary means of achieving attractive and workable urban solutions achieved a great deal of success in advancing the field of urban design in Victoria. Indeed, other states swiftly picked up on what were seen to be Victoria’s groundbreaking ideas and introduced their own strategies for implementing Framework Plans.

Other notable benefits from the Programme included:

  • A greater awareness of the need to plan for change over time and not for the next election cycle

  • A realisation that the active and ongoing involvement of the community is an essential component of the design process

  • The completion of many over-due studies

  • Some key studies have now become the basis for Council policy

Also, in response to early criticisms of the inadequacy of the funding provision for implementation, a greater emphasis was placed on ‘Place-Making’ during the latter years of the Programme, with notable advances in places like Ringwood, Frankston and Dandenong.

THE LESSONS

However, at the end of the 6-year Pride of Place Programme a number of criticisms have been levelled at the lack of tangible outcomes, and also the obvious disparity in quality between the Framework Plans that were produced.

Rather than see these issues as a failure of the Framework Plan per se, it is more realistic to recognise them as part of an evolutionary process that has given us a better insight into how Framework Plans should be developed and used, and how such a programme as Pride of Place could be run in future:

These issues are:

  • Areas of Focus. One of the challenges of a programme such as this is the need to focus resources where most needed, and on the whole, the policy of targeting the less privileged areas in Victoria has been a successful one. However, and possibly unavoidably, there are many examples of very deserving places that did not receive funding from Pride of Place. Also the criteria, unfortunately, excluded the development of new places – many of which give the biggest challenge to Councils, particularly those on the outer fringes of the urban area.

  • Briefing. Under the Programme, councils were required to prepare their own briefs for each of the projects. This led to an inevitable variability in scope, content, and certainly quality, which led to considerable frustration on the part of consultants. DOI wasted no time in trying to correct this obvious drawback by vetting all Briefs, but the problem persisted. Also, towards the end of the process, there was an awareness that funding was coming to an end, which then encouraged some councils to include additional requirements in their briefs, which would not normally be covered by the scope of a Framework Plan. In hindsight it might have been more efficient (and the outcomes more consistent), if a single agency (such as the DOI) had prepared all briefs, although there would have been additional cost implications for the State.

  • Design. As rightfully defined in the Pride of Place documents, the fundamental focus of the Framework Plan should be its ‘Vision’. As the Programme progressed the emphasis on this Vision became less valued than the writing of the planning policy needed to enact it. As an urban design tool, the Framework Plan was seen by planners as lacking in its ‘Planning’ focus and, as a result, the emphasis moved away from the development of the concept to the production of the vaguely defined instruction - typified by the ubiquitous (and often anodyne) ‘Urban Design Guideline’. The Plans themselves became mere lists of ‘design’ requirements to be ticked off by the respective Planning Officer, as and when ‘completed’. In many instances this resulted in the Framework Plan becoming a catalogue to aid the processing of planning permits, rather than a catalyst for wide-ranging reform.

    Local councils then further confused the process by employing the Framework Plan to generate the design ideas, following this with the more traditional Structure Plan to develop the planning policy. Inevitably, each plan received a different emphasis, and different consultant firms (with often widely differing philosophies and design imperatives) were employed to produce them. Rather than innovative ‘design’ being allowed to flow naturally into ‘planning’ policy in the one document (as envisaged in the original thinking on the Framework Plan), many of the outcomes lack the link between design and policy needed to ensure their long-term survival.

  • Funding. Realistically, governments cannot provide open chequebooks to councils for capital works, especially in a situation where a large number of studies are being undertaken. However, there perhaps could have been a greater commitment to fund the more important of the many proposals put forward under Pride of Place. A major initiative such as this will inevitably create expectations amongst the public, and the outcomes on the ground have, unfortunately, not matched those expectations. The public feels it has been ‘over-consulted’ in many of our urban environments and a perceived lack of concrete action only serves to compound this problem.

  • Implementation. It is important in programmes, such as these, that the impetus generated by the development of the Framework Plan is not lost once the Plan is produced. It is vital that action on the ground occurs soon after the adoption of the Plan by Council so that the public can be assured that their contribution to the process has not been wasted.

  • Sustainability. Issues of sustainability should certainly have been given greater focus within the Programme. Our towns and cities are facing enormous challenges regarding increased car usage and the inevitable conflict this brings with the needs of residents, pedestrians and cyclists. Similarly, key issues such as the promotion of public transport, crime prevention through design and the social aspects of building communities could also have been given greater focus. In reality, the guiding aim of Urban Design Frameworks should be the creation of sustainable design outcomes over time.

  • Champions. As the Programme developed it became apparent that much of the success of Framework Plans depended on the presence of champions, both in the consultancy team and within council. These champions were able to establish ‘ownership’ of the outcomes and became passionate drivers of the ideas, in many cases forcing the pace to achieve real outcomes. The recognition of the need for champions is one of the most worthwhile outcomes from the Programme.

  • Fees. By their very nature, Framework Plans are highly complicated and labour intensive pieces of work. Anecdotal evidence from consultants around Victoria suggests that the financial rewards from undertaking this type of urban design work were consistently low, and that many consultants often failed to cover their costs.

HASSELL’S APPROACH:

At HASSELL, our primary concern was that the Framework Plans should have robustness over time and that this robustness should come from the strength of the underlying Vision. We felt that this Vision should be based on sound design principles illustrated by simple imagery that would be both understandable and memorable, acknowledging that our real target audience was the community who lived and worked in these places. The core idea, illustrated by the Vision, was then maintained throughout the development of the Framework Plan, and was adhered to from the large-scale through to the detail.

The following selection of framework plans, undertaken by HASSELL, illustrate our approach:

  • Frankston

  • Bendigo

  • Lilydale

  • Moonee Ponds

FRANKSTON

Awards: 1999 Australian Institute of Landscape Architects (AILA) (Victorian Chapter) Commendation Award; 2000 Planning Institute of Australia (PIA) Award for Planning Excellence

Status: Adopted and underway

 

Frankston is a major coastal city 40 kilometres south of Melbourne’s CBD, at the gateway to the Mornington Peninsular. Originally a popular holiday destination in the Victorian era it has been blighted by poor ad hoc development for many years.

Although its major asset is its seaside location, the north-south alignments of Kananook Creek, Nepean Highway and the main rail line to Melbourne have created a separation of the original centre from its seafront.

The fundamental basis of our Vision for Frankston is to reverse this trend and re-establish contact between Frankston and its real focus, the sea. We advocate crossing or even removing these artificial barriers to allow greater east-west movement, and then re-focussing the whole of the city centre towards the water. As many of the existing buildings are poor replacements for the original Victorian grandeur and are likely to be re-developed over the next 10 years this is seen as a real possibility.

BENDIGO

Awards:   2000 AILA (Victorian Chapter) Commendation Award; 2000 PIA (Victorian Division) Award for Planning Excellence

Status:   Reference document

Bendigo is one of Victoria’s premier inland cities, which had its heyday in the mid 1850s when the largest gold deposit in Victoria was discovered. Since the ‘bust’ of the 1890s it has had a chequered history, with little of the majesty of its original architecture repeated in its newer developments. However, it is once again growing fast and is benefiting from the new Fast Train line from Melbourne.

The fundamental premise of the Vision for Bendigo acknowledges the original grid of the city centre (with its discordant yet beautiful sweep of Lyttleton Terrace) as one of the town’s most significant urban structures.  The Plan recommends that this city grid should be revealed once again; the pedestrian malls of the 1980s should be removed, and new developments encouraged to focus within the confines of the city grid and not dispersed to the city’s fringes.

LILYDALE

Awards: 2001 AILA (Victorian Chapter) Merit Award; 2002 PIA (Victorian Division) Commendation

Status:  Underway

Located some 39 kilometres west north-west of Melbourne, at the entrance to the Yarra Ranges, Lilydale is a country town that has been gradually absorbed into Melbourne’s eastern edge. As the focus of its local region and the nearest major town to the wine region of the Yarra Valley, the town is ideally placed for growth, but suffers, once again, from the poor development that has afflicted many of Victoria’s peripheral towns and cities.

The long main street has been divided into two competing centres for many years and the focus of the brief was to determine which should be treated as the primary street. Our Plan, however, took another approach and looked at the history of Lilydale to provide the key.

Originally, the town was established as a crossing point between the Olinda Creek and the Maroondah Highway, and the main street had developed both east and west of this point. The Vision recommends the recognition of this history and the concentration of town’s civic and cultural focus at this crossing point - especially as there is adequate space for development. The two arms of the main street would then radiate east and west of this new focus, and neither would need to have dominance over the other.
MOONEE PONDS

Award:  2004 AILA (Victorian Group) Merit Award

Status: Adopted and under way

Moonee Ponds is one of Melbourne’s Principal Activity Centres, 7 kilometres from Melbourne’s CBD. It should be one of its most thriving retail centres in Victoria, but it has faced relative decline as a retail centre since the late 1980’s, much as a result of structural inefficiencies in its urban form. The retail and commercial focus is activated in only an east-west direction, with little permeability north south.

The vision for Moonee Ponds revolves around a simple proposition: that if the centre is to thrive then a north-south vehicular and pedestrian street should be pushed through the centre of Puckle Street, which is the dominant east-west retail strip. An attractor should then be positioned at the northern end of this new access way to balance the attractor already created by Safeway Supermarket to the south. Thus, an active north-south axis could be established, allowing areas in the northern part of the retail core, which have been derelict for over ten years, to be accessed and the town given the opportunity to develop to its full potential.

 

LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE,
FRAMEWORK PLANS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR:

The Pride of Place Programme is now at an end and much of its original impetus has unfortunately been lost. The public’s expectation of on-going funding for capital works inspired by the Programme seems to have lessened the politician’s enthusiasm for the Framework Plan as an agent of change. However, thanks to the emphasis placed on them during their 6 years of existence in the public sphere, Framework Plans have gained much greater credence in the private sector. Also, the model for the Framework Plan that was set up in the early stages of the Programme, (and its emphasis on design) has proven to be both robust and enduring, and highly transferable to the private sector.

The lessons learnt from the Pride of Place process can be summarised as follows:

To be effective, a Framework Plan needs:

    • A strong idea
    • Robustness
    • Flexibility
    • The full backing of the client
    • A champion at officer/project manager level
    • A willingness on the part of council to work with the private sector and vice versa
    • A real understanding, on the part of the client, of what constitutes ‘best practice’ urban design, or at least a willingness to embrace new thinking, without prejudice
    • Ownership’ by the community
    • Adequate funding for the necessary capital works

In addition to the above, the Urban Designer needs to have the following qualities:

    • Design credibility
    • Salesmanship
    • Political nouse
    • Passion
    • Perseverance
    • The desire to get the project built
    • The ability to build it
    • A willingness to become the champion

The following is an example of a major Urban Design Framework Plan that we have undertaken in the last year, for the private sector:

UNIVERSITY HILL FOR MAB CORPORATION

Award: 2005 AILA (Victorian Group) Award for Excellence in Planning; 2005 Planning Institute of Australia (Victorian Group), Award for Planning Excellence, Category – Urban Design Plans and Ideas

Status:   Under construction

Covering an area of 100 ha, University Hill offers a rare opportunity to establish a new, mixed-use urban village within 20 kms of Melbourne’s CBD. Located on the old Janefield Hospital site, the design of University Hill will be a direct response to the social and economic needs of the north of Melbourne and to the physical and contextual influences of the adjacent Plenty River.

Learning the lessons from the Pride of Place Programme we have aimed to produce sustainable urban design, from the outset. Our Vision for University Hill is a sustainable response to the needs of its context:

  • On the one hand the urban environment can be perceived to be ‘pushing in’ from the western and southern boundaries (characterised by Plenty Road, RMIT, the Metropolitan Ring Road and the surrounding residential areas), while the natural environment can be perceived to be ‘pushing in’ from the north and east (characterised by Plenty River and its steeply wooded gorge). Each influence can be said to demand a stake in the physical character of University Hill.

  • As a result of these influences, a more formal and structured urban character will shape areas nearest to the western and southern boundaries, known as the ‘Urban Zone’; while areas closer to Plenty Gorge Parklands (known as the ‘Natural Zone’) will be more responsive to the nearby natural environment, and consequently less formal.

 

  • Where the two influences merge, a transition zone, known as the ‘Margin’, will be created, where the ‘fingers’ of the natural environment (such as ridge lines, gullies and outlying trees) interlace with the ‘fingers’ of the urban environment (for example, the existing heritage buildings, and areas designated for commercial and retail development). The ‘Margin’ will be characterised by a blending of the ‘Urban’ and the ‘Natural’ – a place where both formal and informal co-exist.

Overlaying over this spatial patterning will be a linear layering of roads, footpaths and cycle ways. The major linkages will be heavily informed by the dendritic system of the Plenty River and its many tributaries, while the treatment of the secondary linkages will reflect their location within the zones.

A series of points will then form the third building block of the conceptual framework. These either already exist (e.g. the heritage buildings, archaeological sites and remnant significant trees) or they may be newly created, such as the Town Square, secondary nodal points, individual buildings and artwork.

Finally, and with this framework as the foundation, an urbanist response will then be overlain across the site. This will emphasise the role of the pedestrian within University Hill and will define a highly mixed used development, where working, living, shopping and leisure can all take place in close proximity.

Spatial Layering

Land-use:

    • The emphasis will be on a mix of land-uses, both vertically and horizontally.

    • The more formalised retail/commercial/business park areas will be confined to the western and southern areas of flatter land, i.e. the ‘Urban’ zone. There will also be significant residential development within these core areas.

    • The remaining medium density residential areas will be located on the steeper slopes with access to the significant views, (i.e. close to, or within, the ‘Natural’ zone). They will also be within easy walking distance of the Town Centre.

    • The ‘Margin’, which includes the existing heritage buildings, refurbished as apartments, will exhibit an intensive and sometimes eclectic mix of land-uses.

Open Space:

    • The larger areas of open space will to be concentrated in the ‘Natural’ zone, close to the Plenty Gorge Parklands, and also on the slopes of the gullies as they penetrate the site. Many of these parks allow the creation of lakes and wetlands, which will act to filter stormwater before it is discharged in to Plenty River.

    • More formalised parks will occur within the ‘Urban’ zone, such as around the former homestead site, now known as Peppercorn Park, and in the Town Square.

    • The ‘Margin’ will feature a range of open space character-types, ranging from a more structured feel nearer to the ‘Urban Zone,’ to a more traditional approach within the established landscape of the heritage buildings and to a more naturalised treatment closer to ‘Natural’ zone.

 

Linear Layering

Streets:

    • The major streets (Main Street, the Northern Access Road, and Industrial Drive) will follow a natural, dendritic pattern - flowing from the junctions at Plenty Road towards a winding and tree-lined Boulevard, which leads to the main residential area of the Eastern Peninsular.

    • Minor streets, located in the ‘Urban’ zone, will be rectilinear in pattern, while streets located in the ‘Natural’ zone will be less structured and more responsive to the landform.

    • Minor streets in the margin will exhibit a form and character reflective of their specific location and function.

Pathways and Cycle ways:

    • Pathways will follow the dendritic system in the ‘Natural’ zone, but will be more formal in the ‘Urban’ zone. Material type will also respond to location, e.g. concrete / formal paving in the urban areas, softer more informal surfaces towards Plenty River.

 

Point Layering

    • The character of new focal points will respond to their location within a particular zone. For example, buildings will be formal and rectilinear within the ‘Urban’ zone, but will be more open and responsive to land form and views in the ‘Natural’ zone.

    • The landscape treatment of nodes will also echo their location, while art pieces will be commissioned to respond to their particular situation.

 

Urbanist Response

    • Legibility, permeability, diversity and adaptability will be at the forefront of the design approach.

    • University Hill will be a highly connected and walkable environment.

    • We are committed to reducing the impact of the urban activities of University Hill on the environment by: mitigating stormwater pollution, improving energy and water efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, where possible.

    • A newly created Main Street, with the Town Square as its focus, will act as the centrepiece for the new development, and will reflect the character of a typical Melbourne street, but re-interpreted in a contemporary manner.

    • Mixed-use development will surround the Main Street with retail, office, commercial and residential uses creating a vibrant and active urban environment.

    • Further away from the Main Street, but still within walking distance, will be located the medium density residential areas, offices, newly re-furbished heritage buildings, and the Business Park. These will in turn lead to the more standard broad acre subdivision of 500 lots, located on the eastern wing of the site.


 

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the variability of some of its outcomes, the Pride of Place Programme has proven to be a major stepping-stone in the way we look at our urban places in Victoria and has achieved a great deal in furthering the importance of design in our urban realm. What has been learnt from the Programme has taught us much about how Framework Plans should be undertaken and has demonstrated the tremendous value of this type of instrument when applied to the private sector.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Urban Design Unit, Department of Infrastructure, Government of Victoria. (1999 and 2000) Pride of Place, An Urban Design Program for Victoria.

Urban Design Unit, Department of Infrastructure, Government of Victoria. (2002) Urban Design Planning Note 3: Urban Design Frameworks.

Commonwealth Government of Australia, (2005), Sustainable Cities, House of Representatives, Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage, August 2005, Canberra

Parliament of Victoria. (2004) Outer Suburban Interface Services and Development. Committee’s Inquiry into Sustainable Urban Design for New Communities in Outer Suburban Areas, Final Report September 2004.

Frankston City Council, Victoria. (1999) The Frankston Project: Creating an Urban Design Vision for Frankston

City of Greater Bendigo, Victoria. (2000) Bendigo City Plan

Shire of Yarra Ranges, Victoria. (2001) Lilydale Town Centre Revitalisation Project: Urban Design Framework.

City of Moonee Valley, Victoria. (2003) Moonee Ponds Plan