The Difference that Metropolitan Strategies Make - CiteSeerX

16 downloads 2497 Views 1MB Size Report
downloaded from our website free of charge: www.griffith.edu.au/centre/upp. For further information about our publications series, contact Ms. Rebecca. Sibley ...
Making a Difference with Metropolitan Strategy: Australian Evidence Brendan Gleeson and Toni Darbas

Urban Policy Program Research Monograph 3 July 2004

Making a Difference With Metropolitan Strategy: Australian Evidence

Brendan Gleeson and Toni Darbas

Urban Policy Program Research Monograph 3 July 2004

URBAN POLICY PROGRAM The Urban Policy Program (UPP) was established in 2003 as a strategic research and community engagement initiative of Griffith University. The strategic foci of the Urban Policy Program are research and advocacy in an urban regional context. The Urban Policy Program seeks to improve understanding of, and develop innovative responses to Australia’s urban challenges and opportunities by conducting and disseminating research, advocating new policy directions, and by providing training leadership. We aim to make the results of our research and advocacy work available as freely and widely as possible.

UPP RESEARCH MONOGRAPHS UPP Research Monographs are occasional papers that report research undertaken by the UPP including investigations sponsored by external partners, which provide more extensive treatments of current urban policy problems and challenges than our more topical UPP Issues Papers and scholarly Research Papers series. All Issues Papers, Research Papers and Research Monographs can be downloaded from our website free of charge: www.griffith.edu.au/centre/upp For further information about our publications series, contact Ms. Rebecca Sibley, Email [email protected]

THE AUTHORS OF THIS RESEARCH MONOGRAPH Brendan Gleeson and Toni Darbas are members of the Urban Policy Program. This Research Monograph was edited by Dr Stephen Horton.

ii

This report was prepared for Planning NSW. The content, including the research findings, does not necessarily represent the views of Planning NSW.

ISBN 1 920952 02 0

© Urban Policy Program Griffith University Brisbane, QLD 4111 www.griffith.edu.au/centre/upp

iii

Table of Contents List of Figures .................................................................................................. v Executive Summary .........................................................................................1 1. Introduction and Methodology......................................................................5 1.1 Aim and Structure of the Paper ............................................................5 1.2 What Sort of Planning is Considered? ..................................................5 1.3 What Sort of Difference is Considered? ...............................................6 1.4 Methodology ........................................................................................6 1.5 Study Team ..........................................................................................7 2. Urban Research...........................................................................................8 2.1 Market Failure and Social Welfare........................................................8 2.2 Globalisation and the Urban Management Imperative........................10 Steering a Course on Global Seas......................................................10 The Need for Enhanced Metropolitan Governance .............................12 2.3 Summary ............................................................................................13 3. Business Sector Views ..............................................................................15 3.1 Emergence of Triple Bottom Line .......................................................15 3.2 The Business Case for Urban Governance ........................................16 National Urban Governance Advocacy ...............................................16 Property Council of Australia (PCA) Policies and Reports ..................17 The Committee for Sydney..................................................................19 Queensland Regional Growth Management Advocacy.......................23 3.3 Summary ............................................................................................24 4. Public Sector Analyses ..............................................................................22 4.1 Recent Metropolitan Strategies ..........................................................22 Melbourne 2030: planning for sustainable growth...............................22 Planning Strategy for Metropolitan Adelaide .......................................23 Focus on the Future: WA Sustainability Strategy ................................23 4.2 Commonwealth Urban & Regional Development Review...................24 4.3 Summary ............................................................................................24 5. Community and Media Views.....................................................................28 5.1 Community Attitudes in Sydney..........................................................25 The Warren Centre .............................................................................25 The Total Environment Centre (TEC)..................................................25 Recent Debates in the Sydney Media .................................................26 5.2 Recent Debate in the SEQ Media.......................................................27 5.3 Recent Melbourne Media ...................................................................28 5.4 Summary ............................................................................................29 6. Specialist Analysis .....................................................................................29 6.1 Cost Benefit Analyses of Regional Growth Management ...................29 6.2 Melbourne Growth Management Modelling ........................................31 6.3 South East Queensland Growth Management Modelling ...................32 6.4 Transport Management in Sydney - The Warren Centre....................33 6.5 Summary ............................................................................................34 7. References ................................................................................................35

iv

List of Figures Box 1.21 Box 3.21 Box 6.11 Box 6.21 Box 6.22 Box 6.31

Metropolitan Plans: Sectorial Function Set Poor Growth Management: Implications for Sydney Estimated Benefits of Regional Planning in SEQ (1991 prices) Best Practise Project Appraisal and Evaluation TBL Assessment Criteria for Melbourne Urban Transport Policy Estimated Benefits of Open Space in SEQ

v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This paper reviews academic, business, government and public perspectives of metropolitan planning in Australia. A parallel study canvassing overseas evidence is also available (Urban Policy Program, 2003a). The review is organised into three main parts. Section 2 examines academic analysis of contemporary metropolitan planning. The next 3 sections are ordered by urban social interest. Section 3 explores the role and preference of business in metropolitan planning. Likewise, Section 4 and 5 (respectively) focus on urban government and the popular ‘community’. The paper concludes with more specialist analysis. This time of the relative costs and benefits of regional metropolitan growth management.

Academic Rationale Australian scholars advance the following rationale for metropolitan planning: Urban market failure. The urban market systemically under invests in infrastructure. It also generates extensive and intense externalities. These failures need to be managed through planning at the local, sub regional and metropolitan level. Social preference and value now include equity and environmental integrity. Of itself the urban market cannot provide for these social preferences. Planning can define, and help achieve, acceptable thresholds of social well-being and environmental integrity. Sustainable urban economic management is a necessary, if not sufficient, condition for urban social welfare. The concept of ‘urban liveability’ should be recognition and non-monetised values, relating to environmental and social preference, defined and planned. Urban structural policies can increase economic efficiency and social welfare. For example, a strong urban centre(s) policy to manage the dispersion of investment, improves both the efficiency of metropolitan circulation and public access to goods and services. Optimal city size. A large urban mass generates both economic and social returns to scale. There comes a point, however, where further growth produces diminishing marginal returns. Costs include: environmental degradation, congestion, immobility, social dislocation and an overheated land economy. Metropolitan planning is needed, not only to manage growth but also to control it beyond a certain explicitly defined point.

Research on globalisation and its urban impact suggests the following rationale for metropolitan planning: 1

Global city. In recent decades, the city – especially the large developed city – has become increasingly ‘decoupled’ from its peripheral and national economy. It now seeks position in a global system of fierce inter city competition and weak regulation. City as image. In the global, mass medium the competitive city appears in cultural image. That is to say, there is an implicit or virtual sense of the city as a unique ‘artefact’ whose cultural strengths and weaknesses are reflected, almost directly, as economic possibilities and constraints. Competitive city. The idea that the global city competes aggressively for inward investment is now a truism in Australia and overseas. The possibility of assisting in the competition for investment has revived government and business interest in urban planning. City sport. As a ‘player’ in intense competition, the city must be: • • • •

fit (effectively and efficiently managed). coached (strong leadership). aware of the game plan (sound strategic planning). on the field (strong cultural economic projection).

Economism. The reduction of metropolitan management to economic promotion (urban ‘boosterism’) discounts social and environmental qualities that make for urban liveability. Economistic plans neglect both the image of the city, as represented to international capital, and the reality of the city as lived by residents. Change Lobby. Many corporate and industry lobbies, traditionally narrowly ‘pro-development’, now advocate ‘managerial’ urban policy. As a social interest, business in Australia proposes integrated policy for urban development in the global marketplace. Sustainability. In all urban social sectors sustainability is of growing concern. Even corporate advocacy has started to accept ‘triple bottom line’ planning for sustainable metropolitan development. Urban Governance. Globalisation has opened up debate not just on metropolitan management but also on frames of urban governance now required for the sustainable growth of the internationally integrated city. Urban-Regional Government. The complexity of the global city requires the ‘vertical’ extension of urban management to include urbanregional government. Governance of complex metropolitan systems via fragmented and/or uncoordinated local authorities is unlikely to lead to sustainable growth management.

2

Business Sector Views The business sector argues for metropolitan planning that is highly responsive to global economic trends. Growth. The emergence, out of the nation, of the city as the locale of prosperity has fostered business interest in metropolitan planning. Of key interest is the capacity of the city to encourage and support business clusters. Image. Business views ‘liveability’ as an important image in attracting, highly skilled labour, international economic managers and inward investment. Planning for urban amenity is a marketing precondition for economic growth. Infrastructure. Metropolitan infrastructure, especially transportation, is of ongoing concern for Australian, and particularly Sydney, business. ‘Proactive’ planning and strong urban management at the metropolitan scale are necessary to reduce business transaction costs and restore and maintain liveability. Governance. Business advocates ‘quadruple bottom line’ planning. Effective governance at the metropolitan scale should not only be integrated in form (whole of government) and substance (economic, social and environmental planning), but should also forge partnerships between government, the private sector and the community (the fourthdimension

Public Sector Analysis The Public Sector rationale for metropolitan planning flows from concern about poor social and environmental trends. Common Good. For the public sector the city is a common good to be secured through prudent policy and fair public management. Metropolitan planning ameliorates market driven distortions arising from over-emphasis on micro-economic reform. Objectives of metropolitan growth management: • • • • •

attract and keep new jobs. provide and maintain urban infrastructure. correct socio-spatial inequity. restrain ecologically unsustainable patterns of urban development. restrain urban degradation arising from private economic and household decisions. 3

• integrate government policies. Sustainable Development. The public sector is increasingly committed to triple bottom line accounting for ecologically sustainable development (ESD). ESD is viewed less as a balance between conservation and economic growth, and more as an integrated set of social, economic and environmental goals to be jointly achieved.

Community and Media Views Perhaps for the first time in Australian history, metropolitan planning is of widespread, if not mass, community interest. Dissatisfaction. In Sydney, South East Queensland and Melbourne planning is popularly perceived as an antidote for: • • • • •

urban congestion. lack of open space. poor urban design. inadequate public transport. environmental degradation.

Politics. Urban social unease over urban congestion, environmental degradation, poor urban design and so forth, is a political risk and opportunity. Grass root protest over development in green space corridors contributed to the downfall of the Kennett (1992-1999) and Goss (1990-1996) Governments. In contrast, the participatory and green planning efforts of the Bracks Government (1999-current) have secured public support.

Specialist Analysis Cost benefit analysis in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland shows substantial economic benefits from metropolitan planning. Investment in public transport infrastructure, open space and sustainable patterns of settlement yield high rates of return to government(s), the economy and households.

4

1. Introduction and Methodology 1.1 Aim and Structure of the Paper This paper reviews academic, business, government and public perspectives of metropolitan planning in Australia. Its final aim is the presentation of an extensive range of policies and their contexts. A parallel study canvassing overseas evidence is also available (Urban Policy Program, 2003a). Following a brief explanation of the nature of evidence, Section 2 examines academic analysis of metropolitan planning. The role of business, government and ‘community’ in metropolitan planning (and their policy preferences) constitute, respectively, Sections 3, 4, and 5. The final section of the paper presents specialist analysis of the relative costs and benefits of regional (including urban), growth management.

1.2 What Sort of Planning is Considered? Metropolitan planning is defined as a strategic plan for managing change in urban regions (Urban Policy Program, 2003b). Such strategic planning precludes localised development control and its impacts. Metropolitan strategic planning potentially encompasses the entire range of government policy found in urban contexts. This includes policy specific to the metropolitan area and to the more broadly defined urban region. The range of these sectorial policies is illustrated in Box 1.21.

Box 1.21 Metropolitan Plans: Sectorial Function Set • • • • • • • •

physical land use: form & structure. transport: infrastructure & services. housing: infrastructure & services. social & cultural: infrastructure & services. water & other services (e.g. energy & waste): infrastructure & plan. environment & resources: prevention, management & restoration. governance: representation; policies, programs, regulations. finance: revenue (taxes, levies) & expenditure (investment & services).

5

1.3 What Sort of Difference is Considered? The subject of the paper is effective strategic planning at the metropolitan scale. As such it bypasses the question of planning failures; viz., the instances where planning fails to meet its own aims and objectives and even, in some circumstances, manages to produce deleterious results and unanticipated outcomes. A significant literature has explored ‘planning disasters’, both in Australia and overseas. (e.g., McLoughlin (1992). This material details the tendency of uncoordinated and fragmented development control systems to produce socially inequitable local outcomes. As such it underlines the need for coordinated planning at the supra-local scale: the very thing that metropolitan plans attempt to do. Notwithstanding the policy implications of planning failure, pragmatic considerations dictate analysis be restricted to ‘successful’ metropolitan planning. A full ‘balance sheet’ analysis of metropolitan planning was simply beyond the resources of the study. A more accurate – if clumsy – title for the paper would have been ‘The difference successful metropolitan strategies make’. The conceptual and political limits of this focus have import, especially for those interests that oppose, for a variety of ideological and ethical reasons, planning in any form. Such opposition could flow from a Hayekian view that any government interference in social and economic outcomes irreducibly undermines individual liberty. Here individual liberty is prioritised over aggregate considerations, such as distributional equity, social welfare and/or ecological integrity. Another form of opposition might be based on the view that – in spite of the historical record – planning is rarely or never successful, however worthy its objects, and is thus a waste of social resources. A metropolitan plan may, therefore, be seen as ‘successful’ when measured against its own objects, but, at the same time, an unnecessary use of public and private resources and/or an inappropriate constraint on the individual use of property. This paper brackets such views. Its ethic holds good planning is possible and necessary at the metropolitan scale because it enhances social welfare and ecological integrity without excessively compromising individual property rights.

1.4 Methodology The research for this paper is based upon review of secondary material, some of which was produced for internal circulation in State agencies. The sources further include both academic publications and a range of materials produced by special and public interest groups. None of the ‘sectorial’ reviews attempt a representational analysis of opinions. The object rather is to outline an extensive range of arguments and policy advanced in favour of metropolitan planning. Section 6 reviews ‘community

6

and media views’. It is not social analysis but a limited ‘snapshot’ of recent community and media discussion on metropolitan planning.

1.5 Study Team This research paper was prepared by Brendan Gleeson and Toni Darbas of the Urban Policy Program.

7

2. Urban Research In Australia there is, as Gleeson (2002) and McLoughlin (1992) note, little empirical evaluation of the difference planning makes to metropolitan development. Peter Self and Brian McLoughlin1 have made compelling theoretical arguments for metropolitan planning, largely based upon observation of overseas urban development. In recent years the debate on globalisation, its national and regional impact and a possible response via metropolitan planning, has been led by the popular media. Academic literature has tended to react to, and critically reflect upon, the advocacy for metropolitan planning advanced from non-academic, notably business, quarters. In tracing the debate only essential sources are referenced. Some reference is made to overseas evidence where this provides a useful context for Australian commentary.

2.1 Market Failure and Social Welfare In Australia, two recent academic commentaries have specifically addressed the rationale for metropolitan scale planning. Peter Self, the widely known British (later Australian) theorist of public administration and planning, focuses on market failure and social welfare as rationale for metropolitan planning. Self (1990) draws attention to the rise of environmentalism in western democracies in the 1960s. In the following decades public preference has expanded, and been reprioritised, to include environmental concern. Earlier socio-political shifts had underlined the importance of equity as a social value. By the 1990s, governments had a democratic responsibility to manage the social, environmental and economic interaction of urban development (a shift paralleled in the corporate sector by the rise of ‘triple bottom line’ accounting principles – reviewed in 3.1). The city is an intensive frame of socio-economic interaction, generating significant impacts at a range of scales (local, sub regional, metropolitan, supra-metropolitan). The risk of negative environmental and social externalities is high. Good economic management is a necessary but not sufficient condition for urban social welfare. ‘Urban liveability’ requires recognition and management of non-monetised values relating to environmental and social preferences. The cost of not doing so will, in this view, be paid in rising social dysfunction and worsening environmental damage that erodes the conditions for stable and prosperous economic activity. Not all the externalities generated by the urban economy is in the first instance, or exclusively, environmental or social. Some are internal to the economic process itself. Traffic congestion, for example, a problem generated 1

Sadly, both now deceased.

8

within the circulatory system of the urban economy, ultimately undermines economic efficiency. For Self, “…the structure and the economy of modern cities not only reflect the inequalities of the market but intensify them” (1990:10-11). The spacebound nature of urban externalities, private and public, means metropolitan economies confer benefits and costs on people in a particular pattern. Gleeson & Randolph (2002) note patterning occurs at a variety of scales, influenced, for example, by local impacts of housing markets and regional effects of labour markets. Although strongly critical of strategic planning practice in post-war Melbourne, McLoughlin (1992) nonetheless sees metropolitan planning as an important aspect of social and spatial equity. Where there is no planning, or only localised development control, wealthy communities will benefit most from the market allocation of resources and ‘disbenefits’. An uneven urban geography will develop, with rich and poor localities defined by environmental and social difference. To achieve economic, social and environmental sustainability urban management must be a ‘multi-scale’ enterprise. Self sees a pivotal role for urban structural policies to increase efficiency and social welfare. A strong urban centre(s) policy, for example, would limit unmanaged dispersion of investment, improving both the efficiency of metropolitan circulation and public access to valued goods and services. The complex issue of optimal urban scale in Australia is discussed by Max Neutze (1965). It is received wisdom that large city size confers economic and social benefits and there comes a point where further growth produces diminishing marginal returns. For Self the costs of hyper-growth include environmental degradation, congestion, immobility, social dislocation and an overheated land economy. Metropolitan planning is required not just to manage growth but to control it beyond a certain explicitly defined point. Growth control necessitates supra-scale (in Australia, state/territory) settlement strategy to fix urban boundaries in space and policy. Finally, on the question of finance, Self advocates greater use of metropolitan taxes and levies that favour both urban liveability and the maintenance of infrastructure. For example, house market pricing too often reflects an exclusive need for internal rates of return, with external costs of infrastructure use or environmental impacts disregarded or undervalued. In recent Australian commentary Fensham & Gleeson (2003) advance rationale for betterment levies to address this issue.

According to Self, the principal goal of metropolitan planning is to maintain an aggregate level of urban investment in social and physical infrastructure. Markets systematically under invest in the maintenance of common resources and in the provision of public goods. Metropolitan planning should concern itself largely with public investment not public expenditure.

9

2.2 Globalisation and the Urban Management Imperative Steering a Course on Global Seas Economic globalisation and its impact on cities has been a major topic of recent international and Australian social scientific literature.2 In the past three decades, a rapid integration of national and regional economies, aided by successive rounds of trade liberalisation, has given new spatial freedom to investment and speculative capital. At the same time, cities as focal points of innovation and infrastructure, have assumed a new significance, often at the expense of both non-urban areas and urban areas reliant on a declining industrial base (‘rustbelt’ cities and regions). At the same time as the flow of capital between nation states has been liberalised , a ‘reconcentration’ of wealth and opportunity has occurred within national society. Cities are focal points for international investment transmission and for the benefits and opportunities that flow from this. A global system or network has emerged linking these new nodes of economic vigour. This system is hierarchical. ‘Top rank’ cities capture the highest value flows of capital, including human capital. Other, subordinate ranks are discriminated by industrial profile, the extent and nature of capital flow(s) and, not least, the image of the city. It is not possible to review in any detail the complex phenomenon of global cities. The most important point is: the city – especially the large developed world city – has become increasingly ‘decoupled’ from its regional and national economy and is now set within a highly competitive (i.e. lightly regulated) global system. Virtual City Globalisation of cultural flows has both accompanied and complicated economic integration. Extensive flows of ‘foreign’ migration, tourism and cultural forms (e.g., Hollywood movies) further link global cities, in many cases at the expense of traditional national and regional patterns of social identity. Cultural richness and distinctiveness are points of market differentiation The ‘image’ of the city as cultural economic phenomena is an important new marker of urban identity. In international media and its consumers there is a heightened sense of the city as a unique ‘artefact’ whose cultural strengths and weaknesses are clearly linked to economic performance. Yet undermining cultural diversity and city image is a necessary rise of global cultural homogeneity - as English becomes the international language of commerce, government and a global petty bourgeoisie, as ways of handling money are standardised (e.g. cash machines); as entertainment forms converge and so forth.

2

See Searle (1996) for a very useful overview of globalisation and its impacts for planning and economic management in Sydney.

10

Competitive City For nearly two decades, international and Australian social scientific debate has discussed a progressive shift towards ‘urban entrepreneurialism’ in urban government. Urban governors and managers are aware their city is locked in perpetual competition for highly volatile capital flows. They have become aggressive advocates, or entrepreneurs, selling investment opportunity and cultural prestige (the two being linked) in the global marketplace. Beyond rhetoric, the public institutions of the city must (to some extent) make good promises of investment advantage. High order competition occurs within the relatively, but not completely, closed circuits of global cities. In this ‘game’, a city such as Melbourne or Sydney is more likely to be competing with an overseas city, such as Toronto or Singapore, than another Australian city. A second competitive circuit occurs at the national and regional levels, as cities vie with each other for scarce public (especially federal) and private investment. The strong primacy of Australian principal cities within their home (state/territory) regions constitutes a second competitive circuit of interstate rivalry for urban investment. The ‘competitive city’ notion is now a truism in both Australia and overseas, and has been largely responsible for refocusing attention on the need for effective urban governance and management. The city, as ‘player’ in a rough and tumble game, must be:

fit (effectively and efficiently managed). coached (strong leadership). aware of the game plan (sound strategic planning). on the field (strong cultural economic projection). In Australia, a consensus around these imperatives has emerged between urban government(s), corporations, lobbies, and some expert commentators. In 1996, the NSW Minister for Planning proclaimed: One of the major objectives for planning for Sydney and the Greater Metropolitan Region is to maintain and enhance a competitive and adaptive economy (in Searle (1996:iii)). His colleague, the Minister for State and Regional Development, echoed these sentiments “…planning in Sydney supports a competitive and efficient economy” (ibid). Global competition, on the other hand, has been condemned by community interests and some expert commentators for destroying social and cultural integrity, and requiring government(s) to prioritise economic over social and environmental objectives. Thornley (1999) warns the reduction of metropolitan management to economic promotion (urban ‘boosterism’), discounts the importance of social

11

and environmental quality as determinants of urban liveability. Capital is not simply attracted by ‘cost reduction’ strategies and enticing rhetoric. Rather, he argues, metropolitan fortunes in the global era pivot on holistic urban quality. Urban strategies are more necessary than ever, but narrowly based, economistic plans misread the broader preference of mobile capital (especially highly skilled human capital) and neglect the living needs of existing residents. Thornley criticises strategic planning in Sydney for these reasons and urges a more holistic and balanced approach. He suggests Sydney to be less ‘fatalistic’ about the presumed imperatives of globalisation and to pursue uniquely adapted strategic visions that have strong community endorsement. Many corporate and industry lobbies, traditionally narrowly ‘pro-development’, now advocate ‘managerial’ urban policy. In sum there has, in recent, years been a shift away from a rather singular economic focus towards a ‘triple bottom line’ position which concedes global capital is sensitive, if not completely committed, to the sustainability imperative. The problems of the first beneficiaries of globalisation, most notably Los Angeles, provide salutary warnings. There is, for example, widespread recognition that urban systems too reliant on private motorised transport face congestion and pollution levels that undermine both their efficiency and attraction as investment locations. There is therefore a premium on global cities with sustainable and efficient public transport systems. Metropolitan Governance As cities have expanded, growth pressures have taken a number of forms including: transport and telecommunication dysfunction; ecological stress; and social polarisation. In many cases metropolitan governance has not kept pace nor space with these issue. New problems, especially ecological stress, have appeared between customary (functional) divisions. Other problems have ranged beyond the boundaries of particular authorities. In sum fragmented and/or uncoordinated local authority governance of metropolitan areas has lead to partially ‘ungoverned’ urban regions. In Europe, advocacy of urban regional integration has been particularly strong. European Union (EU) policies cultivate new regional frames for governance and program delivery (Allmendinger & Tewdwr-Jones, 2000). The goal of EU spatial policy is: To ensure that the role of cities as growth points for regional development is enhanced, and that urban deprivation is alleviated, an integrated strategy of regional and urban policy is essential. This will necessitate local authorities participating closely in the preparation and implementation of regional development programmes…(Balchin et al., 1999:229).

12

The quote neatly captures the two key themes that have emerged as new governance nostrums for the global city: integration and coordination. Integration of different policy spheres maximises the cumulative effect of public endeavour by preventing oversights, overlaps and contradictions in purpose and activity. Supra-local coordination, frequently through new regional governance frames, is a necessary bridge between local and national scales of government (Stilwell, 2000). Such a ‘bridge’ serves a dual purpose: to strengthen regional solidarity and therefore democracy generally; and to improve the articulation of national and local policy frames and thereby enhance governance overall. In Europe, recognition of the ‘meso-scale’ of governance has seen both the EU and individual states (notably, the UK) devolving administrative power from central governments to regional authorities. The governance concerns of the EU are echoed in Australia. Institutional arrangements for the sustainable administration of spatial economies and communities has become a key focus for all levels of government (Spiller, 1999). Although not explicitly metropolitan in focus, the current ‘PlanFirst’ reform proposals in NSW highlight a ‘governance deficit’ at the regional level. The reforms propose supra-local planning and governance of the economic, social and ecological consequences of rising growth pressures. The ‘business case’ analysis that has been produced to support the PlanFirst reforms is reviewed in section 6.

2.3 Summary Australian scholars advance the following rationale for metropolitan planning: Urban market failure: The urban economy generates large scale and intense externalities and other market failures, including systematic underinvestment in infrastructure. These market failures need to be managed through planning frameworks at the local, sub regional and metropolitan levels. Social preferences and values have expanded in recent decades to include equity and environmental integrity. Unregulated urban market interactions do not provide for these values. Planning intervention is required to secure minimal acceptable levels of social well-being and environmental integrity. Sustainable urban economic management is a necessary but not sufficient condition for urban social welfare. ‘Urban liveability’ requires the recognition and management of the non-monetised values of environmental and social preference. Urban structural policies can increase efficiency and social welfare. Urban centre(s) policy, for example, limits the dispersion of investment

13

and increases both the efficiency of metropolitan circulation and public access to valued goods and services. Optimal city size: a large urban mass confers economic and social benefits, but there comes a point where further growth produces diminishing marginal returns. Costs include: environmental degradation, congestion, immobility, social dislocation and an overheated land economy. Metropolitan planning is needed, not just to manage growth but also to control it beyond a certain explicitly defined point. Academic research on globalisation and its urban impacts produced the following rationale for metropolitan planning: Global city system: In recent decades, the city – in particular the developed world city – has become increasingly ‘decoupled’ from its national and regional economy, and integrated within a competitive global system of light regulation. The ‘global imaging’ of the city as cultural economic phenomena has become a powerful new marker of urban identity. Amongst national and international communities generally, there is a heightened sense of the city as unique ‘artefact’ whose cultural strengths and weaknesses are clearly linked to economic performance. Competitive City: The idea the global city competes aggressively for inward investment is now a truism in Australia and overseas. Competition for investment is largely responsible for refocusing attention on effective urban governance and management. Sport City. The city as ‘player’ in a rough and tumble game, must be: • • • •

fit (effectively and efficiently managed). coached (strong leadership). aware of the game plan (sound strategic planning). on the field (strong cultural economic projection).

Economism. The reduction of metropolitan management to economic promotion (urban ‘boosterism’) discounts the social and environmental qualities that make for urban liveability. Economistic plans neglect both the image of the city, as it represented to international capital, and the reality of the city as it is lived by residents. Change Lobby. Many corporate and industry lobbies, traditionally narrowly ‘pro-development’, now advocate ‘managerial’ urban policy. Sustainability. Sustainability is of growing urban concern. Even corporate advocacy has started to accept ‘triple bottom line’ planning for sustainable metropolitan development.

14

Urban Governance. Globalisation has opened up debate not just on metropolitan management but on frames of governance for sustainable growth of the internationally integrated city. Urban-Regional Government. The complexity of the global city requires the ‘vertical’ extension of urban management to include urban-regional government . Governance of complex metropolitan systems via fragmented and/or uncoordinated local authorities is unlikely to lead to sustainable growth management.

3. Business Sector Views 3.1 Emergence of Triple Bottom Line Business support for metropolitan planning has become less economically determined. The 2003 Cities Leadership Summit, for example, hosted by the Property Council of Australia called on Australian governments, and on the PCA’s own constituency, to support a ‘New Urban Partnership’ strongly derivative of the triple bottom line principle (see further discussion below of the PCA’s position, as outlined in a series of recent documents). Triple bottom line accounting is a product of global corporations and the international environmental movement. In the 1990s, environmental non government organisations (NGOs) responded to the ecological challenges of globalisation with a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) agenda. The agenda recognises transnational corporations are frequently more powerful than national governments. It organises NGOs, on an international scale, to both criticize and establish creative alliances with corporations. It has achieved some notable reversals of corporate policy, fort: … many businesses now believe pressure groups have become a political force in their own right and that the corporate world must respond (Fabig & Boele, 1999:59). The CSR holds environmental protection, social equity and the production of wealth through economic growth intersect and reinforce each other. It contends the social and environmental impacts of global economic activity are so severe that traditional conceptualisation of social progress, in purely economic terms, is insupportable. As a technique, CSR extends reporting metrics beyond profitability to encompass the social and environmental impacts of economic activity. Elkington coined the term ‘triple bottom line’ (TBL) to capture, simultaneously, the technical and philosophical dimensions of CSR (1997). Along with TBL accounting there has been, within corporate Australia, increased support for regional growth management. Growth management is viewed as an indispensable component of the global city’s international TBL ‘rating’. Traditional 15

institutional, statutory and funding arrangements in Australia’s State Governments do not support regional management. Consequently, metropolitan governance is increasingly articulated as an additional dimension of the triple bottom line, in both private and public sectors. The three capitals (social, economic, environmental) are extended to include a fourth – an effective system of urban governance. The PCA, for example, advocates a quadruple bottom line: In many ways governance is the fabric that ties together the other forms of capital that underpin cities … The structures in place often underpin unsatisfactory policy environments, that are not conducive to solving major area-wide urban problems such as sprawl, congestion, inappropriate development and pollution, that impact on the liveability of cities and the economic opportunities for the cities and the hinterland they serve. An effective governance system may be the most valuable asset a city can have (2002:5).

3.2 The Business Case for Urban Governance Business (particularly property interests) has responded to the global competition between cities with a series of urgent reports advocating metropolitan growth management in Australia’s premier cities. The incremental deficits of poorly governed urban regions continue to handicap Australian cities in the competition for international investment. The business sector is sensitive to the fact that overseas cities, on the other hand, are meeting the challenge of urban governance. National Urban Governance Advocacy In 2000, the Property Council of Australia (PCA) and Council of Capital City Lord Mayors (CCCLM) combined to produce a report entitled, The Capital Cities and Australia’s Future. Capital Cities isolates four key trends in Australia’s principal urban areas. 1. Macro-economic settings have been internationally homogenised. The capacity of national governments to influence employment and investment outcomes by conventional means has been reduced by free ranging world capital markets. 2. The urban intensity of economic activity is increasing such that competitive advantage largely depends on the local environment of firms. 3. Urban attributes have become determinants of inward investment. Urban liveability is crucial in an increasingly borderless world occupied by a ‘best and brightest’ labour pool. 4. International standards have tightened (i.e. treaties, International Standards Organisation framework, etc.). The externalisation of costs onto labour and the environment is becoming less acceptable. As a consequence of these trends urban growth management is becoming a key variable in national prosperity. The economic performance of capital cities 16

will be determined by how well a “coherent vision and strategy is brought to bear on the actions of the many different institutions and individuals involved in the urban management process” (PCA &CCCLM, 2000:19-23). Four aspects of metropolitan management are particularly important. 1. commercial connectivity – the city as international gateway 2. the efficiency of metropolitan structure – reducing the cost of doing business. 3. support for innovation. 4. support for cultural tourism. (PCA &CCCLM, 2000:19-23) Property Council of Australia (PCA) Policies and Reports Recapitalising Australia’s Cities (2002) sees the city as a focal point for economic growth and activity and hence the engine of national prosperity. The industry(s) clustered in the city fosters competitive critical mass, business efficiency, and the fluid interchange of information and technology. It is calculated that capital cities generate 64% of Australia’s economic activity (PCA, 2002:10-11). Metropolitan strategies are necessary because “location has a strong and enduring role in prosperity, even in a far more global economy” (PCA, 2002:14). The competitive advantage of a city, even in a global context, is shaped largely by metropolitan policy. The PCA’s definition of TBL accounting is extended to include effective governance. All four dimensions of ‘quadruple bottom line’ accountability point to the need for metropolitan planning to correct market failure and so provide for sustained liveability and economic growth. 1. Economic capital includes not just physical and financial assets but the human capital embodied in individuals, organisations, institutions, communities and places. 2. Social capital. The networks, norms and social trust that make up social capital are the flux that allow “individuals, groups and communities to resolve collective problems more easily”. Without social trust decision makers have little legitimacy, making change difficult. Income polarisation driven by the new knowledge economy is spatially expressed. City areas ‘specialising’ in poverty produce self-sustaining, marginal urban cultures. Such social exclusion constitutes a loss of social capital. (PCA, 2002:24-25). 3. Ecological capital. “An integrated approach to the closing of cycles of natural resources, energy and waste” underwrites economic opportunity. A ‘green halo’ attracts events, concerts, exhibitions and symposiums. High urban amenity makes a city more liveable and attractive to key mobile, global knowledge workers. Emergent green

17

technologies and products present immediate commercial opportunities. 4. Governance capital. Government is viewed as just one instrument in the “most valuable asset that a city can have”: an effective governance system. ‘Spatially blind’ policy makes the cumulative impacts of intervention opaque. ‘Whole of government’ public policy is not spatially sensitive enough. It also excludes the community, NGO and business involvement necessary for effective urban governance (PCA, 2002:2– 5). PCA argue metropolitan strategies can best capture the economic benefits of globalisation by: • • • • •

positive adjustment to technological change and the knowledge based economy. protection of environmental and social assets threaten by growth. protection of social cohesion threatened by socio-economic polarisation. reconciliation of global competitiveness with the interests of local communities and electorates. a participatory approach to planning to include all metropolitan stakeholders. (PCA, 2002:46).

The PCA’s Asian Urbanisation and the Impact on Australian Cities (2000) details population forecasts for Asian cities - expected to increase from 1.4 billion in 2000 to 2.7 billion in 2030. By this forecast the focus of large-scale urbanisation will shift from Europe and the United States to Asia (Lindsay, 2000:6-9). The United Nations has calculated there will be 18 mega Asian cities (population of more than 10 million people) by 2015. While these mega cities may not be command centres in the global economy, they are potential key locations for new finance and service industries, likely sites of innovation, and certainly future product markets (Lindsay, 2000:18). The dynamic of Asian growth will require, and attract, massive capital investment, increasing existing competition between cities. (Lindsay, 2000:23) The implications for metropolitan planning are clear: Broadly based strategic plans, developed in partnership with business and communities, will become essential tools for urban management, providing a medium-term perspective within which day-to-day decisions can be made. Such strategic plans will serve much the same function as corporate strategic plans now do – positioning the city economically, setting goals and objectives for the environment and for social development, and providing a framework for coordinated action among urban ‘players’ to ensure the well-being of the city’s residents and businesses … Cities that don’t do this will not be competitive in the new urban world … (Lindsay, 2000:25). 18

The Committee for Sydney In Sydney 2020: the city we want, the Committee for Sydney argues: “If we do not more pro-actively plan and manage our city’s future” Sydney will suffer the following negative consequences (Box 3.21). Box 3.21 Poor Growth Management: Implications for Sydney • • • • • • •

people will miss out on jobs. we will fall behind in attracting investment coming into Asia. the city will continue to spread into areas without viable infrastructure. inequities currently experienced by residents will rise, especially in the outer suburbs. car dependency will increase. air quality will deteriorate further. our feeling of safety will erode.

(Source: The Committee for Sydney, 1998:7). Sydney is a world city, a city that can: “provide a complete and quality urban environment that is, in the long term, sustainable and capable of adapting to global trends” (The Committee for Sydney, 1998:9). A high standard of liveability - secured by social development, quality of life and environmental sustainability - is crucial for economic development: The general consensus is that cities able to offer a high quality of life will be able to retain and attract economic decision-makers, workers and hence investment and activity (The Committee for Sydney, 1998:39). Social, economic and environmental bottom lines are underpinned by the provision of enabling infrastructure. Enabling infrastructure is both ‘hard’ (transport, communications, land and property etc.) and ‘soft’ (leadership, urban planning and management, policy and regulatory environment). According to The Committee Sydney compares badly to similar world cities on three fronts: 1. The ability to create jobs. The targeted attraction of inward investment into specific industry sectors and business clusters should be increased. 2. High car dependency leading to congestion and poor air quality. The report underlines the costs of a slow overall deterioration in the ability of Sydney’s infrastructure to reduce the “friction or ’hassle’ costs that business, workers, residents and visitors have to deal with” (The Committee for Sydney, 1998:46).

19

3. Poor metropolitan leadership and planning. Spatial and jurisdictional boundaries must be bridged and coherent city governance coordinated on a metropolitan scale. In short, ‘proactive’ planning and strong urban management at the metropolitan level are needed to restore and maintain the conditions for liveability and economic growth in Sydney.

NSW Call to Action In 2003 the NSW Division of the Urban Development Institute issued a ‘Call to Action’. It argues in the absence of a strategic plan a growing Sydney is unprepared to cope with: • • • • • • •

inefficient travel patterns. transport congestion. over consumption of water and energy. unaffordable housing. unequal access to services. visual disharmony. growing community conflict and unrest.

The Institute urges a metropolitan strategy and effective governance to integrate the multitude of authorities and their plans.

Queensland Regional Growth Management Advocacy The President of the Queensland branch of the Urban Development Institute, Grant Dennis, denies sprawl or over-development is caused by the urban development industry. He attributes adverse urban development to “poor, uncoordinated and shortsighted planning”. Stronger, better integrated planning is needed for sustainable urban growth. Planning is viewed as a necessary precondition to urban development. However, planning “is only an academic exercise if the necessary investment in infrastructure does not follow”. These infrastructure needs include: transport, employment, education and health services, childcare, shopping, parks, leisure activities and green space. Dennis contends the urban development industry is currently more environmentally proactive than the Queensland government. He argues: Government cannot escape its fundamental responsibility to devise, develop and implement sound planning practices and procedures, which address the complexity of future growth followed by the provision of infrastructure and the development of our communities (Dennis, 2003:11). 20

3.3 Summary The emergence of the city as ‘an engine of national prosperity in the global economy’ has provoked business self interest in urban policy. Within globalisation the locale of economic endeavour has become more, rather than less, important. The capacity of a city to establish and grow business clusters is key. Business supports the extension of economic policy to include environmental policy. Liveability is as an important lure for inward investment as high environmental amenity attracts international economic decision-makers and highly skilled employees. From this perspective, urban amenity is a precondition for economic growth. Business is alert to the risk incremental infrastructure deficits and the slow overall decline in urban functioning, pose to both Australia’s and Sydney’s international competitiveness. ‘Proactive’ planning and strong urban management at the metropolitan level are advocated to reduce business transaction costs and restore and maintain liveability. Business urges quadruple bottom line urban management. Effective structures of governance are essential to integrate economic, social and environmental goals. Beyond institutional integration at the metropolitan scale, partnerships between government, the private sector and the community are required.

21

4. Public Sector Analysis Ecologically sustainable development (ESD) and triple bottom line (TBL) accounting are now accepted public policy options. ESD frames environmental issues in economic and scientific terms, shifting the debate away from traditional judicial structures and allowing governments and the environmental movement to find common ground (Hajer, 1995). TBL was introduced into Australia in international policy (e.g. OECD, Agenda 21). Subsequent political (election) commitments and the efforts of public service champions have furthered its acceptance. Government agencies find TBL complements micro-economic reform processes and assists communication: • • • •

between government agencies and departments. between agencies and community stakeholders. within entrenched agency cultures requiring reorientation. between planning/output agency divisions.

(Public Sector Collaborative Research Project, 2002).

4.1 Recent Metropolitan Strategies Although urban growth management lacks support at the Federal level, some State Governments have launched ambitious metropolitan planning projects based on TBL principles. Melbourne 2030: planning for sustainable growth The new metropolitan strategy for Melbourne builds on earlier plans and inherited infrastructure while responding to new issues confronting the city (Department of Infrastructure, 2002a). Its strategic objectives are: ecologically sustainable development. a new state-capital city contract to simultaneously relieve metropolitan population pressure and encourage regional revitalisation. accommodation of population growth consequent on smaller household composition. coordination of the location and management of new infrastructure and services. a creative response to public alarm and protest over the direction of metropolitan development. While accommodating growth the strategy aims to protect the city’s valuable built environment: The main thrust is to continue to protect the liveability of the established areas and to increasingly concentrate major change in strategic redevelopment sites such as activity centre(s) and

22

underdeveloped land … This will help prevent urban expansion into surrounding rural land. The trend towards fewer people in each household will continue to support demand for well-located apartment lifestyles around activity centre(s). This will be supported by an expanded and more attractive public transport system (Department of Infrastructure, 2002a:1). Planning Strategy for Metropolitan Adelaide Adelaide’s 2003 metropolitan strategy update takes a distinctly TBL approach to metropolitan planning. The strategy privileges “inter-relationships and dependencies between economic realities and environmental and social imperatives”. The TBL approach of the strategy is reflected in: policy to increased city share of national and international economic growth in the form of sustainable, well paid jobs. a precautionary approach to land use, water quality and consumption, urban expansion, open space, energy use, waste and greenhouse gas emissions. equitable access to resources and opportunities, social inclusion and community strength. (Planning SA, 2003:1-2)

Focus on the Future: WA Sustainability Strategy The Western Australian Draft Sustainability Strategy (2002) embraces ESD as a global concept for the integration and simultaneous achievement of social, economic and environmental goals. It contends: These kinds of integration – where environmental, social and economic factors begin to mutually reinforce each other – are often found in situations where business, communities and governments form creative partnerships (Government of Western Australia, 2002:25). The Sustainability Strategy facilitates such partnerships. The reduction of the ecological footprint of the urban area is an explicit goal of the Strategy. It proposes to: Use [the] Future Perth processes as a mechanism to generate region-wide community debate on urban growth and test implementation options to achieve optimal employment, residential and centre location and to reduce urban sprawl (Government of Western Australia, 2002:135).

23

4.2 Commonwealth Urban & Regional Development Review The following outline derives from three documents produced as part of the Commonwealth’s Urban & Regional Development Review of the early and mid-1990s, viz.: Transport and Urban Development (1993); Urban Australia: trends and prospects (1995); and Green Cities (1995). The Commonwealth Urban & Regional Development Review argues while a mixture of private and public service provision is desirable, urban management driven by the market process lacks cohesive foresight. It is, in short, socially blind. Of most concern is the privatisation, and thus fragmentation, of previous public services (waste, water, roads, etc.). At its most basic level, the privatisation of urban infrastructure only focuses on the components of urban development, failing to deal with urban development as a product in its own right (Commonwealth of Australia,1995a:207). The review accepts the need for Australian cities to compete in a global economy, yet it also warns of risk to social cohesion. If the quality of development, services and the environment is allowed to deteriorate, the likely result is a polarised city. Urban management is necessary to mitigate this risk (ibid:218). Australia’s urban transport system(s) is highlighted for reform. The integration of transport planning into broad urban management is essential: “… urban transport does not exist in its own right but as an adjunct of urban development” (Commonwealth of Australia, 1993:8-9). For the review low density housing, and the rigid separation of residential, employment and retail land use reinforces road transport dependence and renders the Australian city ecologically unsustainable (Commonwealth of Australia, 1995b:10). It suggests strategic planning for ecological sustainable development. (Commonwealth of Australia, 1995b:185).

4.3 Summary For the public sector the city is a common (social) good to be secured by the policy and process of public institution(s). Metropolitan planning is required to limit the social and environmental distortions of microeconomic reform. The goals of metropolitan growth management are: • • •

attract and keep new jobs. provide urban infrastructure. mitigate spatial manifestations of social inequity.

24



limit the ecologically unsustainable pattern of urban development . • mitigate urban degradation arising from the multitude of private economic and household decisions. • integrate government policies to achieve these goals. There is a growing acceptance in the public sector of triple bottom line accounting as a means of attaining ecologically sustainable development (ESD). ESD is now viewed less as a balancing act between conservation and economic growth, and more as an integrated set of social, economic and environmental goals to be achieved simultaneously.

5. Community and Media Views Public debates in Sydney, Melbourne and South East Queensland express deep public dissatisfaction with the impacts of urban growth and, to a lesser degree, support for metropolitan scale planning.

5.1 Community Attitudes in Sydney The Warren Centre The Warren Centre undertook a Community Values survey of 1300 Greater Sydney residents as part of its enquiry into the shortcomings of the Sydney transport system. It found: • • •

residents have a close interest in major issues affecting their city. The lack of long-term planning is a major concern for residents. Residents support a Sydney-wide planning and development authority. almost four in five (78%) of the survey participants believe Sydney has significant transport and traffic problems, with 20% believing these problems are major and require drastic measures. road congestion is the most pressing issue of concern, followed by housing affordability, greenhouse gas emissions and air quality. (Warren Centre, 2001)

The Warren Centre also found the assumption low public transport use implies low public support for public transport provision to be unfounded. The Total Environment Centre (TEC) The TEC report Sydney – the urban sustainability challenge, observes a “range of contradictory forces battling to put their stamp on the city” (TEC, 2003:4). In the debate about the future shape and development of Sydney,

25

the Centre argues the “theme of environmental sustainability deserves a central place”. The scale of the environmental problems faced by the Greater Metropolitan Region now and in the future … cannot be understated. Either the problems will be managed and the ecological footprint reduced or there will be an unwelcome and observable reduction in the quality of life (Ibid:4). Failure to intervene in Sydney’s unsustainable pattern of urban development will result in: • • • • •

decreasing housing affordability. increasing cost of infrastructure provision. urban sprawl into Sydney’s environmentally sensitive riverine and hillside zones with consequent loss of biodiversity. degradations of catchments, through household, road and industrial runoff. acceleration of energy and water consumption; e.g., through trends like home air conditioning. (TEC, 2003:4)

Recent Debates in the Sydney Media In 2003 the Sydney Morning Herald in a series of articles drew attention to growing social unease over Sydney’s seemingly endless expansion and poorly controlled and planned development. The diverse triggers for public protest (notably, high density housing and loss of open space) are united by a “sense that development is out of control and there is no coherent plan for the future of Sydney” (Nicholls & Kerr, 2003). A strategic plan returning to Olympic style coordination is needed to reverse trends making the city increasingly unsustainable, and hard to live in and move around in. The consequences of not undertaking strategic metropolitan planning include: • • • • • • • • •

jobs sprawl – as employment development is not related to transport centre(s). residential sprawl – as higher density development is inadequately tied to transport nodes. uneven quality of planning and urban design – as it is left to individual developers. an unarticulated collection of urban centre(s). piecemeal and ecologically inefficient urban renewal of middle ring suburbs. entrenchment of welfare ghettos. high car dependence – with strong motorway development and incremental decline of rail infrastructure. lack of funding for public transport infrastructure. poor integration of transport with urban planning – the release of new residential land without public transport infrastructure.

26

• • •

lack of policies (such as provision of transport links and employment) to encourage population centres outside the Sydney Basin. high energy and water consumption. degradation of Sydney’s river systems and waterways consequent on a loss of public open space.

5.2 Recent Debate in the SEQ Media A recent series of local newspaper articles developed the image of the SEQ as a ‘200km city’. The major features of the sprawling conurbation were: • • •

a lack of publicly owned open space to separate rapidly growing urban areas (the Gold Coast, Brisbane and Sunshine Coast). the haphazard lease of land for development. a preference for roads over public transport.

For Gary White, president of the Queensland Division of the Planning institute of Australia: We’re at the crossroads … If we don’t take the tough decisions now, Noosa to Coolangatata will be heading towards a huge, linear, regional metropolis within 10 years (McGregor, 2002). The Courier Mail series reproduced maps showing how “dramatically fewer parcels of land [are] under public ownership than comparable regions, most particularly the Sydney area” (Johnstone, 2003b:32). Spearritt is concerned about developer driven urban growth being adjacent to freeways rather than focused on centres. He advocates “a mass transit system that links the major centres” (Spearritt, 2002). Visiting American planner Steven Ames, describes the SEQ approach to metropolitan planning, “building more tunnels and wider roads”, as “reactive” (Green, 2002). The lack of an effective mechanism to provide for open space between urban areas is laid at the door of the Beattie government (1998–current). It disbanded ROSS - the Regional Open Space System (see Reynolds, 2002). Local Governments are angry the $35 million originally put aside for purchasing open space was spent on other projects (Johnstone, 2003c:11). The ROSS successor, the Regional Landscape Strategy, has no legislative power and is required by Environmental Protection Agency mandate to protect biodiversity, rather than focus on the provision of publicly accessible open space (Reynolds, 2002, The Courier Mail, Editorial, 2003b:10). For Reynolds this collapse of political will is dangerous. She recalls the Goss Government (1990-1996) lost office “after trying to push a road through a koala habitat despite community outrage” and notes surveys showing 2 out of 3 people are very concerned about loss of open space in SEQ (Reynolds, 2002).

27

Brisbane’s Courier Mail criticises the State Government’s reluctance to involve itself in urban planning: “too often it has appeared ready to vacate the field and leave it to individual councils to sort out” (The Courier Mail, 2003a). The inability of Local Governments (under the Integrated Planning Act 1997) to prohibit development makes it difficult and expensive for them to provide open space (Johnston, 2003a:31). A Courier Mail Editorial suggests policies to “… encourage councils and their residents to consider the effects of growth on the region as a whole” (2003b:10). Gleeson argues the State Government should design a unified regional land release system for the SEQ, to more clearly govern where development should and should not occur (2003:15).

5.3 Recent Melbourne Media Former Minister Alan Hunt notes in the Melbourne Age, that the city’s international award for ‘world’s most liveable city’ was earned with 30 years of metropolitan planning that retained the city’s charm and character despite the pressure of rapid growth. Urban growth was channelled along rail and highway spines separated by protected green wedges. Hunt comments: Planning exists to ensure continuity, certainty, a reliable sense of direction and ongoing protection for the community and its values and objectives. If it is to do that successfully, it must survive the vagaries of elections. Planning that chopped and changed direction with every political wind would not be planning at all; it would be ad hoc decision-making (Hunt, 2003:15). The public apposed the Kennet government’s relaxation of development control in the city’s green wedges. The restoration of these controls by the Bracks Government (1999-current) has broad public support (The Age, 20/2/03:16). Premier Steve Bracks described the inscription in law of the Urban Growth Boundary as “…the end of the open-slather period of growth and the start of sustainable development in Victoria” (The Age, 10/10/02:14). A debate about the balance between roads and public transport is currently unfolding in The Age. There is concern: • • •

road building is favoured over expenditure on public transport. shopping mall development is not restricted to heavy rail corridors. how to increase of the public transport modal share of trips from 9% to 20%. (Davidson, 2003a and 2003b)

Mees (2002) suggests in The Age that since urban public transport is a natural monopoly, separate public transport agencies should be consolidated, in the interests of seamless service.

28

5.4 Summary There is widespread public dissatisfaction with poorly managed metropolitan growth and corresponding public support for metropolitan planning in Sydney, South East Queensland and Melbourne. Core public concerns include: • • • • •

lack of open space. poor urban design. urban congestion. funding bias towards roads over public transport. loss of environmental amenity.

There is a disjuncture between the pattern of private consumption (of water, energy, vehicle usage, low density housing) and public dissatisfaction over the resulting degradation of the urban system as a whole. These contradictory but linked trends require the mediation of sustained metropolitan growth management. Social unease concerning the side effects of poor metropolitan planning - such as urban congestion, environmental degradation and poor urban design – is a political risk, and opportunity. Grass root protest over urban development in green space corridors contributed to the downfall of the Kennett and Goss Governments. In contrast, the participatory and green planning efforts of the Bracks Government have won public plaudits.

6. Specialist Analysis The costs and benefits of regional growth management have been estimated in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. The reports support the claim metropolitan planning has quantifiable economic benefits.

6.1 Cost Benefit Analyses of Regional Growth Management SGS Economics and Planning have undertaken a series of ‘business case’ analyses of different forms of regional growth management. PlanFirst uses regional strategy to unify state planning policies and local planning schemes, consolidating state, regional and local controls on land. The cost of implementation is calculated at $67.03 million over 9 years. The benefit cost ratio of this investment is 60:1. The NSW economy will benefit by

29

$300 million a year and the generation of 5 300 jobs in 10 years. The reforms will become cash flow positive for the NSW government in 5 years. The forecasted benefits assume: • • • •

more efficient settlement patterns - reducing transport investment and running costs, pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. enhanced coordination of infrastructure. improved place management. reduced friction in development approval.

The reforms, with no additional resources, would deliver these benefits, but with a minimum of a 10 year time lag (SGS Economics and Planning, 2001). SGS contend: Few public sector initiatives would show such a strong net economic benefit to the NSW community. This should not be surprising because PlanFirst is, in essence, a wide-ranging microeconomic reform initiative. It aims to improve the gamut of trading and living transactions across space. In short, making metropolitan Sydney more efficient because of an improved structure will deliver very sizeable economic benefits (SGS Economics and Planning, 2001:22). SGS Economics and Planning similarly undertook a cost benefit analysis of regional planning in SEQ. The TBL benefits to be secured through efficient urban governance are detailed in Box 6.11, below.

Box 6.11 Estimated Benefits of Regional Planning in SEQ (1991 prices) Trend Scenario Warranted road investment $15.4 billion Total travel by vehicle Vehicle operating costs Travel time costs Emissions (carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon, nitrogen oxides)

87.5 million Vehicle km per day $5.3 billion per Annum $8.9 billion per Annum 32.7 tonnes/km2/annum

‘Preferred’ Scenario $12.6 billion 78.2 million Vehicle km per day $4.4 billion per Annum $6.7 billion per Annum 26.2 tonnes/km2/annum

(Source: SGS Economics and Planning, 2001:19)

30

6.2 Melbourne Growth Management Modelling The Victorian Department of Infrastructure in its evaluation of project investment requires TBL accounting State policy now requires infrastructure investments to serve many objectives. These include regional and private sector development, environmental protection, improved economic governance and a variety of other policy objectives including human resource development, public sector reform and effective natural resource management as well as economically efficient infrastructure creation (Department of Infrastructure, 2002b:1). Drawing on international (World Bank and OECD) best TBL practice the department proposes the following principles to be applied in the evaluation of infrastructure investment (see Table 6.21, below)

Box 6.21 Best Practise Project Appraisal and Evaluation Separating economic analysis from financial analysis. Economic surplus as the primary indicator of project viability. Economic, social and environmental analyses must be integrated. Project analysis and policy analysis must be conducted concurrently. Complementary institutional changes must be planned. Project analysis must be viewed as a cycle and involve monitoring and post-evaluation. Investment in rehabilitation of existing assets should always be considered. All project assessment must include risk analysis and risk management strategies. (Source: Department of Infrastructure, 2002b:2).

These guidelines were used to analyse the costs and benefits of the Melbourne 2030 urban transport objective - increasing the modal share of public transport from 9% to 20% of all passenger trips. A “broad range of incremental economic, social and environmental benefits and costs were estimated”. They are listed in Box 6.22 over leaf.

31

Box 6.22 TBL Assessment Criteria for Melbourne Urban Transport Policy Travel time benefits for motorists remaining on road and motorists switching to public transport. Road accident cost savings from motorist switches to public transport. Car ownership cost savings. Vehicle operating costs savings from reduced private motoring. Environmental benefits from reduced discharge of greenhouse gas and particulates. Reduced road damage with less traffic volume. Consumer benefits from public transport – average willingness to pay for and participate in mode shift to public transport.

(Source: Department of Infrastructure, 2002c:1-2). It is estimated: the benefit-cost ratio of the public transport modal share increase over a 20 year period was 4.8. the net present value of benefits was $12.856 billion (based on a 6% social discount rate). the overall economic internal rate of return for the proposed mode share investment was 59%. The policy is described as a “highly attractive public sector investment proposal” that “will generate a significant range of economic, social and environmental benefits” (Department of Infrastructure, 2002c:2).

6.3 South East Queensland Growth Management Modelling SEQ 2021: a sustainable future., a regional landscape discussion paper estimates the economic benefits of open space in SEQ. The analytical parameters are: • • • •

production - agriculture, livestock, quarry materials and ecotourism. ecosystem services - water, air soil, pollination and flood mitigation. ecosystem amenity - support for human and other communities. planning system - separation of urban areas, retention of land for future development opportunities, reduced developmental impacts, community boundaries (Department of Local Government and Planning, 2003:35).

The results of the analysis are summarised in Box 6.31 over leaf.

32

Box 6.31 Estimated Benefits of Open Space in SEQ Indicative estimate of annual benefits from current SEQ regional landscape $1 billion – outdoor recreation $2 billion – tourism $800 million – agriculture $2 billion – water production

Indicative estimate of effective open space protection in SEQ (further annual savings) $20 million – Local Government roads and water $40 million – State education $70 million – road congestion $2 million – direct health costs

(Source: Department of Local Government and Planning, 2003:40). The additional, as yet un-estimated, benefits of protecting and managing open space are listed as: • • • • • • • •

quality of life and life-fulfilment for individuals. attractiveness of region to businesses. avoidance of significant land resumption. reduced pollution. avoidance of salinity damage to roads and buildings. avoidance of loss of agricultural production from salinity. avoidance of flood mitigation works and flood damage. unforeseen economic opportunities dependent on land availability.

These additional benefits would necessarily run into billions of dollars in the long term (Department of Local Government and Planning, 2003:40).

6.4 Transport Management in Sydney - The Warren Centre The Warren Centre’s Towards a City of Cities (2002) is a response to public dissatisfaction with Sydney’s congestion. It advocates a new metropolitan plan for Sydney and identifies some of its cost implications. The report concludes Sydney’s congestion is essentially driven by growth in car travel. While car travel will remain the dominant mode of travel, its growth needs to be uncoupled from its present automatic correlation with population growth. The Warren Centre offers a technical ‘course of treatment’ for transport and land use planning. It argues the 2020 cost of not adopting the entire regime will be a 50% increase on an already overloaded transport system, now serving a population of 5 million.

33

The benefits of tackling the problem of transport congestion through determined, cogent metropolitan planning would be: • •

a reduction in the need for Sydneysiders to travel - increasing the possibilities of walking, cycling and public transport. more funding to drive a clear, long-term commitment to public transport.

6.5 Summary Cost benefit analyses undertaken in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland confirm an economic benefit from metropolitan planning of regional growth. Investment in public transport infrastructure, provision of open space and the achievement of sustainable patterns of settlement yield high rates of return to governments, the economy and households.

34

7. References The Age (2003) ‘Wedge Politics of a Different Kind’, February 20, 16 The Age (2002) ‘Setting Limits on the City’s Growth’, October 10, 14 Allmendinger, P. & Tewdwr-Jones, M. (2000) ‘Spatial dimensions and institutional uncertainties of planning and the ‘new regionalism’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 18(6), 711-26 Balchin, P., Sykora, L. & Bull, G. (1999) Regional Policy and Planning in Europe, Routledge , London & New York The Committee for Sydney (1998) Sydney 2020: the city we want Commonwealth of Australia (1993) Transport and Urban Development: Workshop Paper No. 2, The Commonwealth Urban & Regional Development Review, prepared by the National Capital Planning Authority, Commonwealth Department of Housing and Regional Development, Canberra Commonwealth of Australia (1995a) Urban Australia: trends and prospects: Research Report No. 2, The Commonwealth Urban & Regional Development Review, Commonwealth Department of Housing and Regional Development, Canberra Commonwealth of Australia (1995b) Green Cities: Strategy Paper No. 3, The Commonwealth Urban & Regional Development Review, Commonwealth Department of Housing and Regional Development, Canberra The Courier Mail (2003a) ‘Leadership Needed on Open Space’, Editorial, June 13 The Courier Mail (2003b) “Time to get a Grip on Urban Growth”, Editorial, June 23, 10 Davidson K. (2003a) ‘Lies, Damned Lies and the Bracks Tollway’, The Age, April 16, 15 Davidson K. (2003b) ‘A Costly Obsession with Roadways’, The Age, May 12 Davies A. (2003) ‘Time to Put a Stop to Mindless Growth’, Sydney Morning Herald, March 11 Dennis G. (2003) ‘Planning for a Lifestyle’, The Courier Mail, June 16, 11 Department of Infrastructure (2002a) Melbourne 2030: planning for sustainable growth, Victorian Government

35

Department of Infrastructure (2002b) Investment Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines, Victorian Government Department of Infrastructure (2002c) ‘Economic Evaluation of the 20/2020 Mode Shift Target for Public Transport’, Briefing Note Department of Local Government and Planning (2003) Issues and Options for Regional Landscape: SEQ 2021 Discussion Paper, prepared by the Regional Landscape Strategy Advisory Committee, Queensland Government Elkington J. (1997) Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of Twenty First Century Business, Capstone Publishing, Oxford Fabig H. and Boele R. (1999) ‘The Changing Nature of NGO Activity in a Globalising World: pushing the corporate responsibility agenda’, in IDS Bulletin, 30(3), 58-67 Gleeson, B.J. & Randolph, B. (2002) A New Vision for Western Sydney, Issues Paper no. 11, Urban Frontiers Program, University of Western Sydney, Campbelltown Gleeson B. (2003) ‘Land with a Plan’, The Courier Mail, June 12, p 15 Government of Western Australia (2002) Focus on the Future: the Western Australian State Sustainability Strategy Green G. (2002) ‘At the Crossroads’, The Courier Mail, September 10 Hajer M. (1995) The Politics of Environmental Discourse: ecological modernisation and the policy process, Clarendon Press, Oxford Hunt A. (2003) ‘The World’s Most Liveable City Didn’t Happen by Accident’, in The Age, April 29, 15 Johnstone C. (2003a) ‘Space Invaders’, The Courier Mail, June 7, 31 Johnstone C. (2003b) ‘Space for Conflict’, The Courier Mail, June 21, 29 & 32 Johnstone C. (2003c) ‘Expanding Shires Short of Greenery’, The Courier Mail, June 21, 11 Kerr, J. (2003a), ‘Transport Overhaul will put City Streets Ahead’, Sydney Morning Herald, March 12 Kerr, J. (2003b), ‘Getting off the Road to Nowhere’, Sydney Morning Herald, March 12 Kerr, J. (2003) ‘Fares, Please – and here’s an extra $1 for better transport’, Sydney Morning Herald, March 14

36

Lyndsay N. (2000) Asian Urbanisation and the Impact on Australian Cities, Property Council of Australia McGregor A. (2002) ‘Planners Warn of LA-Style Urban Sprawl’, The Australian, September 5 McLoughlin, J.B. (1992) Shaping Melbourne’s Future? Town planning, the state and civil society, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne Meadows, D. et al (1972) The Limits to Growth: a report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind, Universe Books, London Mees P. (2002) ‘Batchelor Fails to Seize the Opportunity’, The Age, December 18, 15 Meyer, B. (2003) ‘Sydney, it’s time to break up’, Sydney Morning Herald, 13 March Neutze, M. (1965) Economic Policy and the Size of Cities, Australian National University Press, Canberra Nicholls, S. & Kerr, J. (2003) ‘Window of Opportunity to Transform City”, Sydney Morning Herald, 11 March O’Rourke, C. (2003) ‘New Lungs for City – and a breath of fresh air for us’, Sydney Morning Herald, 11 March Planning SA (2003) Planning Strategy for Metropolitan Adelaide, Department of Transport and Urban Planning, Adelaide Property Council of Australia (2002) Recapitalising Australia's Cities: A Strategy in the National Interest, prepared by the Allen Consulting Group, Sydney Property Council of Australia (2002) Political Action Plan, draft endorsed with amendments at Cities Summit, Newcastle, copy available from PCA Sydney office Property Council of Australia and Council of Capital City Lord Mayors (2000) The Capital Cities and Australia’s Future, prepared by Spiller M. Public Sector Collaborative Research Project (2002) The ‘Triple Bottom Line’ in the Australian Public Sector: a collaborative exploration, prepared by The Allen Consulting Group Reynolds A (2002) ‘Green Space Needs a White Knight – Fast’, in The Courier Mail, October 31

37

Royal Australian Planning Institute (2000) Liveable Communities: A National Agenda, prepared by Spiller Gibbins Swan Pty Ltd and PRD Research Planning and Design Group, Canberra Searle, G. (1996) Sydney as a Global City, Departments of State & Regional Development and Urban Affairs & Planning, Sydney Self, P. (1990) Metropolitan Planning, SGS Economics and Planning (2001) ‘Plan First’ Business Case, Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, Sydney Spearritt P. (2002) ‘Strip City Dangers’, The Courier Mail October 6 Spiller, M. (2002) ‘City policy must include regions’, The Canberra Times, 11 June, 11 Stilwell (2000) Changing Track: a new political economic direction for Australia, Pluto, Sydney Thornley, A. (1999) Urban Planning and Competitive Advantage: London, Sydney and Singapore, LSE London Discussion Paper no.2, London School of Economics, London Total Environment Centre (2003) Sydney: The urban sustainability challenge, Total Environment Centre, Sydney Urban Development Institute of Australia (2003) Why Sydney Needs One Plan, draft statement or ‘Call to Action’, Sydney, unpublished mimeograph, UDIA NSW Division, Sydney Urban Policy Program (2003a) The Difference that Metropolitan Strategies Make: overseas evidence, a report prepared for Planning NSW by the Urban Policy Program, Griffith University Nathan Urban Policy Program (2003b) What is a Metropolitan Strategy?, a report prepared for Planning NSW by the Urban Policy Program, Griffith University Nathan The Warren Centre for Advanced Engineering (2001) Community Values: Research Report, University of Sydney, Sydney The Warren Centre for Advanced Engineering (2002) A City of Cities: the sustainable transport in sustainable cities project, University of Sydney, Sydney World Commission on Economic Development (1987) Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford

38