Title

Melbourne marvel: From ‘empty and useless' to ‘the most liveable city in the world' In the early 1980s, the city centre of Melbourne, Australia, was a dump. Private interests, concerned only with urban development profits, were busy taking advantage of weak political leadership and poor planning policies to manufacture a boring, ‘could be anywhere' town centre. In 1978, the local newspaper, The Age, described Melbourne as having an ‘empty, useless city centre' – and published photographs to prove it. From a place-shaping point of view, the centre was a disaster zone – totally dead at night, and pretty dreary during the day. Leap forward 25 years, and the city is praised by The Economist magazine as being the ‘most liveable city in the world'. Indeed, Melbourne has now established itself as an international leader in how to create a people-friendly public realm at the heart of a major metropolis. How do we explain this transformation? First, let's take stock of the achievements. Residential accommodation, virtually non-existent in the 1980s, rose from 738 units in 1994 to 9,895 in 2004. Bars, cafes and restaurants increased from 580 in 1998 to more than 1,200 in 2004. Key lessons strong leadership by councillors and officers working together can transform the entire culture of an organisation. the quality of the public realm that results from urban development should drive all planning decisions, not the attractiveness or otherwise of individual buildings. public-private partnerships can bring about creative urban development, but only if decisions are driven by public purpose. Return of the business rate to UK local authorities would provide a powerful incentive to serious public-private collaboration. Networks of arcades and pedestrian-only streets now criss-cross the city centre, and new squares and public spaces are home to imaginative sculptures and artistic events. The Melbourne success story generates three main lessons for UK local government. First, strong leadership – involving politicians and their officers collaborating closely on both agenda setting and delivery – has been crucial. Thus, praise is due to the far-sighted politicians elected to the Victoria State Government as well as Melbourne City Council in the early 1980s. They had an imaginative vision of what their city centre could be like, and set about delivering it with ruthless effectiveness. A new urban design sub-committee was created. Chaired by a councillor who was a strong advocate of the urban design agenda, this sub-committee was crucial in changing the engineering-dominated culture of the local authority. As one commentator puts it: ‘The subcommittee oversaw the introduction of design solutions that were based on requirements for a people-friendly city over any single-purpose requirement, such as traffic movement'. The sub-committee also oversaw all major planning submissions, insisting that the quality of the resulting street should take precedence. Because political and professional leaders worked closely together, they were able to bring about a shift in the ethos of the council towards innovation and risk-taking – an ethos which has lasted for more than 20 years. Second, the bold political leadership has been conjoined with a clear commitment to a strong design culture within city departments. After the adoption of the Melbourne Strategy Plan of 1985, the council established a high-level urban design team. This team had the mandate to override the traditional engineering approaches and sectional decision-making often found in city halls. However, the forthright approach to development control is only part of the design package. Action plans, streetscape plans, technical notes – right down to kerb design and paving details – also guide the behaviour of public utilities and council departments. The Melbourne approach to urban renewal is demonstrably financially viable. Create a truly attractive urban setting, and developers will line up to invest. This, in turn, generates funding streams from property tax income – remember in Melbourne the council taxes business as well as residential properties. This funding can then be used to employ top city planners and architects who can insist on high-quality urban design. It is the opposite of ‘cut-back management'. The third lesson relates to public-private partnerships. Councillors in Melbourne created a city projects division capable of negotiating, designing and project-managing the delivery of public-private partnerships. The division has identified key sites for this model of development, and has many success stories under its belt – for example, the transformation of the Queen Victoria Building. In this instance, the city purchased the property and then packaged up components of the site to attract private sector investment. Some UK local authorities have developed approaches to place-shaping resembling the Melbourne model, and they are to be congratulated. But in too many councils, an out-of-date ‘engineering culture' remains, and the importance of urban design is often under valued. Melbourne shows how strong political leadership coupled with a bold approach to urban design can enhance the prosperity of the city as well as bring about a step change in the quality of the public realm. Robin Hambleton is professor of city leadership in the faculty of environment and technology at the University of the West of England, Bristol, and director of Urban Answers

Title

WHITEHALL

Melbourne makeover

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING