A recent decision by
Brisbane City Council to restrict townhouse and similar ‘missing middle’
housing product to areas actually zoned for it has been met with hostility from
some parts of the urban planning community. It has been exaggerated as a “total
ban” and labelled variously as “terrible news,” a “huge mistake” and “a
disgraceful decision.” Setting aside the emotions that this decision has
triggered, the decision highlights a potentially widening gap between the views
and aspirations of residents and the preferred planning solutions of urban
designers and planners. Is there a solution, other than duelling pistols at 50
paces?
...
Brisbane, along with Sydney and Melbourne, is a city dealing
with the pressures of a rapidly growing urban population. Federal Minister for
Cities & Population last week (19 Nov 2019) declared at a Committee for
Brisbane event that he believed Melbourne – his home city – was probably 20
years behind in the infrastructure needed to keep pace with its growth. Similar
observations could apply elsewhere.
It’s not just our inability to fund and deliver
infrastructure at the speed required that’s seen us fall behind, it’s also the speed
of growth itself. Australia’s major cities have set themselves a blistering
pace in terms of urban growth, as illustrated in the chart below. Our rates of
growth are similar to Chinese mega cities like Shanghai or Beijing, and well
ahead of comparably productive, profitable cities of the west with qualities we
often seek to emulate.
Accommodating these almost frenetic rates of growth has for
more than 20 years seen Australian state and local governments adopt a
pro-density housing model which seeks to prevent outward growth and to
encourage higher density living in established urban areas. While there is much
logic behind this, it also means – for existing residents of those areas –
potentially significant changes to the residential environments they’ve been
used to.
To reassure residents, planning strategies sometimes got
carried away with over-promising the benefits of higher urban densities. This blurb from the 2013
version of the Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney is one example: “A
home I can afford. Great transport connections. More jobs closer to where I
live. Shorter commutes. The right type of home for my family. A park for the
kids. Local schools, shops and hospitals. Livable neighbourhoods.” Few
Sydneysiders would think those promises have since been delivered. Many might
suggest the opposite.
Other planners were highly critical of the infill ambitions
that were central to various state and regional plans. Nationally respected
planner Tony Powell AO described Melbourne’s version at the time (“Melbourne
2030”) as “superficial to the point of ridiculousness.”
He went on to say (in 2007): “The proposition in the latest
crop of metropolitan strategy plans that 50% or more of future housing
development can be accommodated in existing suburban areas of the major cities
is patently ridiculous. These are simply unexamined and unreliable hypotheses,
not strategies.”
Fast forward to today and the arrival of higher density
housing forms into traditionally low-density suburban housing is not going down
well with residents. In some neighbourhoods, residents are positively hostile. To
whom do they express that hostility? Not to the urban planners and architects
who have actively promoted the benefits of density (while downplaying its
flipside) but to their local, elected representatives.
This is democracy at work, and local representatives have a
duty to reflect those concerns. In Brisbane’s case, those concerns saw the
Liberal majority Council introduce restrictions on townhouse and “missing
middle” housing form in low density neighbourhoods. The fact that this
amendment was supported by the opposition Labor Councillors suggests it’s
feedback they are getting also. The community have voiced their opinions and
the legislators and elected representatives have listened. Isn’t that how it’s
supposed to work?
The reality of the restrictions is far from a blanket city-wide
ban, as some critics have tried to make out. Townhouses can continue to be
developed in areas zoned for them: in low-medium density zones, character
residential infill zones, and in medium density zones. There have reportedly
also been some 40ha of ‘emerging community’ zoned land which is no longer
eligible for townhouse development (which is old news).
Neighbourhood plans are
also in a process of ongoing renewal, meaning additional zones suited for
townhouse development can be created in the future, especially in and around
transit or infrastructure nodes. The community simply doesn’t want to see
townhouses arrive in suburban streets of detached homes where the zoning is low
density. They understand low density to mean just that. They want town plans to
deliver on what they say.
(Previously, if a 3000m2 block was available in a low
density residential zone, or if one was amalgamated, developers could apply to
develop a townhouse product irrespective of the low density zone. You can
understand why this went down with locals like a ton of bricks).
But it’s been the hostile reaction of some parts of the
planning community which has been enlightening. There is, it seems, a low
regard by some for the right of the community to have an opinion on what gets
built in their neighbourhood, near the property they own and on which they pay
their taxes and (for many) want to raise their family.
In this case, the Council was criticised “particularly for
ignoring the advice and submissions of industry experts” because “the community
doesn’t understand the full story because they are not experts in the field of
City design and planning.”
The Housing Industry Association chipped in: “This is
plainly and simply a political move because they want to win the election next
year.” Meaning doing what the community wants and hoping to be returned on that
basis is now a bad thing?
Another commented: “It’s concerning that we listen to the
general public for planning in our city rather than the experts who understand
growth of a city.” Wow. Let the import of that statement sink in for a moment.
The tone in all this is “leave this to the experts.” Respect
your betters. If the community fail to appreciate the wider planning objective
being served by the arrival of unwelcome housing forms into their immediate
neighbourhoods, they need re-education. How Orwellian.
Those sentiments obviously don’t represent the majority of
the urban design profession. But the industry as whole might need to be
mindful that the challenges of bringing the community with them, and in
describing the benefits of housing forms such as townhouses, is something that
can’t be taken for granted, nor can community opinions (nor their right to hold
them) be dismissed so readily as the views of “non-experts.”
So the solution? I don’t know – but slagging off at the
community isn’t one of them. There are design prototypes that are perhaps less
likely to provoke community resistance, and there are many people who could
welcome the cost and opportunity this type of housing can provide – from low
income households to seniors to first home buyers. Maybe the community hasn’t
seen as much of the ‘well designed’ product they can actually afford, but
rather have seen perhaps too much of the product that is cheaply designed with
little regard to its lasting community impact?
Either way, a lot more listening and a lot more respect of
community opinion – and the people who are elected to listen to it – would go a
long way.
