Australian cities: the things we don’t talk about

Strategic planning

Even the so-called strategic planning done by planners is not really strategic.

Planners use a simple lineal logic to prepare a new city plan. First a population projection is selected - local politics will influence whether it is the most realistic, or the least scary, or the most hopeful. The raw numbers are converted to households. The available land is assessed and using some formula (again likely to be influenced by local politics) the households are distributed between new development areas and redevelopment areas.

The resultant zoning map of the city becomes “The City Plan”. (Thus confirming that the purpose of planning is to separate land uses.) It is usually accompanied by a list of things that the rest of government “ought” to do to achieve the high faluting aims and objectives of what is really a relatively simple, logical, exercise. Being just an end state plan rather than a live strategic plan designed to pursue complex outcomes over time, there are no consequences if the accompanying actions do not take place. The plan will be a success once rezonings have been legislated, land values have changed and development has been approved. Whether or not there are public transport facilities, rural wedges, excellent urban design, parks and all the other “oughts” will not compromise the plan’s success.

The same guild structures and constraints exist in local councils, which were created in the 19th century as corporate bodies to accommodate and pay outposted guild members from a couple of state guild departments. Organisationally most councils look little different today, although the titles may have changed.

At neither level of government are the planners managing the city and its places. Essentially they are administering development controls. If the city does not meet the high hopes of the document accompanying “The City Plan”, it is the fault of those who did not do as they ought.

A 21st century urban governance

Only by fundamentally changing the current structures of state and local government can we expect to achieve the strategic management of our cities.

We need governments where there are clear responsibilities and powers to achieve complex outcomes; where specialists are there to be employed when they are needed; and where the regulatory roles are separated out as a distinct process that is fair and transparent and seen as merely one means of achieving complex ends.

Rather than being confined to one specialist solution to whatever the issue, outcome managers should be able to do whatever needs to be done to achieve strategic objectives. Outcomes rather than inputs and outputs should be funded and governments should be assessed on achieving those outcomes.

For example, there should not be a road authority with its own hypothecated budget. Rather “accessibility” (the outcome of transport and land use policies) should be funded with the accessibility outcome organisation being empowered to range over all the possible movement and land use solutions to connecting activities. The road budget should no longer be allocated to whatever moves the most cars down the arterials.

Improve public health outcomes and urban design

The latest discussion paper calls, again, for “Built environments that are designed to enable people to travel safely by walking, cycling or using public transport, and that provide access to quality open space, can help increase levels of physical activity and reduce car use. ... urban centres and neighbourhoods … ensure they are enjoyable, encourage social interaction, and provide opportunities for a variety of activity and exercise.” And so on.