hdg407project01 detailed problem analysis group9 spacetastic resubmission-1

8/6/2019 HDG407Project01 Detailed Problem Analysis Group9 Spacetastic Resubmission-1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hdg407project01-detailed-problem-analysis-group9-spacetastic-resubmission-1 1/12

HDG407 Project 1: Detailed Problem Analysis

LITERARY REVIEW

First Submission: 20 March 2011

Final Submission:

Group 9 – Spacetastic:

← CAMERON, Sarah

← DOHERTY, Jacob

← HRISTODOULOU, Ioanis

← LESLIE, Jenna

← MCDERMOTT, Megan



Through the exploration of design issues three important factors to be considered are

space, mobility, and community. During the initial exploration process, it became

apparent that these themes are highly interrelated and give rise complex social

questions. Planners, developers and designers must address these questions in order to

create successful outcomes. This report will consider factors relating to space and

review the available literature on the relationship between design and public space.

The particular focus will be the use and current perceptions of the public spaces

within Melbourne’s Docklands precinct. It will then go on to consider and identify

areas for further research.

In order to identify design issues relating to space, we must first have an

understanding of what space is. It can be 2D or 3D, virtual, physical or perceived. It

may be internal (indoors), external (outdoors), privately owned or open to the public.

Identifying these sub-categories raised the questions of how usage and community

interaction differed between spaces. As the concept of the use of public spaces covers

a broad-spectrum, external public space will be the focus of this report. How and why

are they being used? And what factors must be considered to make these spaces

successful?

With urban planning for Inner Melbourne “strongly encouraging higher density, (with

the) population estimated to exceed five million by the year 2030” (Guthrie, March &

March 2006, p. 2), it is important that we ensure public spaces within the Docklands

are being effectively utilised as recreational destinations.

Public spaces “contribute fundamentally to the quality of life of individuals” (Whyte

1980), as they are conducive “to encounters between peers and adults and experiences

among friends” (L’Aoustet et al. 2004, p. 180). They have the potential to serve many

different uses, however many “urban centres have become dominated by retail

development, pricing out other activities” (Townshend and Madanipour 2002, p. 319).

This has seen the creation of public spaces, which are “devoid of local identity”

(Townshend and Madanipour 2002, p. 318). Successful public spaces need to provide

an environment that accommodates a diverse range of users and functions including

places for shelter, safety, the promotion of relaxation and ambience (Department of



Community Planning and Development Victoria 2011, p. 14). Due to the fact that

“peoples behavior and feelings about safety can be affected by the design of their

surroundings” (Queensland Government 2010), it is the responsibility of designers to

accurately address the needs of the public.

During the late 19th and early 20th centuries the Melbourne Docklands had “developed

into one of largest ports in the southern hemisphere” (Dovey 2002, p. 84). However,

as trading moved west to this city in the 1960’s the area gradually fell into disuse and

by the mid 1990’s had become an industrial wasteland (VicUrban 2009, p. 50).

Redevelopment of the area began in 1989. However, slow development; halted

temporarily by the recession in the early 1990’s, meant that “by the turn of the

century, only one project was complete (Docklands Stadium)” (Dovey 2002, p. 84).

The first residential tower was completed in 2001.

Today the area is split into 4 key precincts – North West Docklands, Stadium and

Surrounds, Victoria Harbour and South of the Yarra. (See Appendix A. Figure 1). It

covers an area of “146 hectares of land and 44 hectares of water” (VicUrban 2009, p.

3) and is home to around “6,000 residents and 19,000 workers” (VicUrban 2009, p.

5). So far “6 billion dollars has been invested into the Docklands over the last decade”

(VicUrban 2009, p. 63) with “around 38% of the contracted land having been

developed” (VicUrban 2009, p. 65).

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006 Census, Docklands residents

consist of predominantly professionals working full time with 72 percent of

households comprising of couples with no children. The median age was 30 years old

(well below the Australian median age of 37), with 23.3 percent of people aged 15-24

years old and 60.4 percent aged 25-64 years old. Approximately 65 percent of people

living in Docklands were renting and 17.5 percent of residents were born overseas

(Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006). Based on these statistics, for the purpose of

this report the concerned demographic will consist of male and females aged between

20 and 34 from a diverse range of backgrounds.



2002, p.84) infrastructure was implemented “without public consultation” (Dovey

2002, p.84). Stephen Wood suggests in Desiring Docklands: Deleuze and Urban

Planning Discourse , that in early phases of development in theory “all members of

the public could contribute to the consultation processes (however in practice) only a

certain type of social actor had his or her views placed on public record” (Wood 2009,

p. 195). The design of the Docklands “involved neither public consultation nor any

attempts at rational comprehensive site analysis: where the Docklands’ physical

features were examined at all, discussion was brief, vague and superficial” (Wood

2009, p. 196).

The Lord Mayor has called it a location with “no sense of community, (and) no sense

of a suburb where you can wander around” (Seven Network 2009) stating that it has

become clear that “community infrastructure is long overdue” (ABC News

2010). Associate Professor Michael Buxton of RMIT Urban Planning Department

suggests that “better public transport, more low rise housing and a retail and

community center could give Docklands the heart and soul it needs” (ABC News

2010). These solutions however are forecast to occur over the next ten years. While

the Government looks at drastic long-term infrastructure changes, it is important that

designers devise short-term solutions to attract people to the area.

Architect Professor Kim Dovey described the precinct as a “luxury housing enclave”

(Ten News 2009), “annexed to upper-end living that has quarantined a limited cross-

section of life and community” (Dowling & Kate 2009, p. 13). With 34% of its

residents earning $1000 or greater per week, (Melbourne City Research 2009)

Docklands has become a “playground for the affluent” (MacLeod 2010, p. 1). These

statistics challenge Docklands’ positioning as “a place for all people” (VicUrban

2011, p. 11). Gridley states “poverty restricts the contribution that individuals can

make to their community” (Gridley 2010, p. 14). Therefore public spaces must

“include rather than evict marginal economies” (Burns, 2000 p. 68) as they provide

the opportunity for mutual experiences between otherwise separate socio-economic

groups.

Statistics have revealed that events currently available at the Docklands have not

necessarily equated to re-visitation by patrons, “of those visitors surveyed in 2009,



almost half were first time visitors” (VicUrban 2009, p. 50). The Docklands

Committee has acknowledged the need to “increase tourism and repeat visits (through

implementing) a diverse calendar of events” (City of Melbourne 2007, p. 18) if the

location is to attract a mix of people “including more children, international visitors,

tourists and students” (VicUrban 2010, p. 11).

“Outdoor activities in public spaces can be divider into three categories: necessary,

optional or social. When outdoor areas are of poor quality, only strictly necessary

activities occur” (Gehl, 1971). As “social activities occur spontaneously” (Gehl,

1971) limited interaction between members of the community within poor quality

public spaces can discourage visitation and strengthen poor public perceptions. To

bring “balance and vibrancy to the community” (Dowling & Lahey 2009, p. 13) three

key ingredients are needed: “a lot of residents, a lot of visitors and a lot of workers”

(Dowling & Lahey 2009, p. 13). These will give the Docklands “a proper, beating

heart” (Dowling & Lahey 2009, p. 13).

These findings have made evident that there is a specific design problem affecting the

Docklands precinct: public space within the docklands has not satisfied the needs of

users i.e. residents, workers and the wider community.

Some urban planners and architects believe the issues regarding Docklands’ public

spaces have resulted from early privatization (Dovey 2002, p.84). Former Victorian

Government Architect, John Denton conceded that problems began more than a

decade ago, when the Government decided to sell majority of the area to private

developers (Dowling & Lahey 2009, p. 13). To solve the issues that have arisen from

the lack of thought for community infrastructure, wider consultation of the general

public is required. “Within a decade Docklands will be finished. To go back and re-

engineer would be much more difficult, and much more costly than building

community as we go” (Dowling & Lahey 2009, p. 13). The needs and wants of the

public must be taken into consideration for future planning of the Docklands.

In 2010 the Brumby Government handed “significant planning control over the

Docklands back to the City of Melbourne” (Carey 2010, p. 11). This action is “what

the residents had been calling for, for a long time” (Carey 2010, p. 11). Despite the



handover, residents find themselves dissatisfied with developments, with Editor of the

Docklands News stating that a promised community hub, school and recreation

facilities “haven’t happened, so the community is still waiting” (7 News 2010).

As the development entered its second decade, VicUrban, the planning body currently

overseeing the Docklands, has implemented a research project involving 2000

participants in an attempt to uncover the needs of the public. This survey was

available via a micro site within the Docklands website. However it proved very

difficult to find. Hidden among broken links, it can currently only be accessed by

those seeking actively involvement. This results in a bias sample. Conducted in

multiple phases, the second phase of research will also likely produce a bias sample,

as it will involve consultation of those already engaging with the area (residents,

workers and visitors on location) via specific events held at Docklands. In order for

the space to be utilised effectively and be economically sustainable, it will be

necessary to achieve effective public engagement in the planning process, opening up

the forum for discussion to the broader public, not just those already visiting the

Docklands.

From the above it is evident that there is a second specific design problem affecting

the Docklands precinct: How can we achieve effective public engagement in the

planning process of public spaces through better information design and media

communications?

“Tensions between globalization and local identity (in public spaces) are one of the

key contemporary debates”(cited in Townshend & Madanipour 2008, p. 317). With

public spaces such as the Docklands where “approximately 98% of the developable

land is privately contracted” (VicUrban 2009, p.5) there is a concern that the area will

continue to develop into socially exclusive “gated enclaves” (Dovey 2002 p. 94).

Parallels with the problems that have arisen in the Docklands can be drawn with the

empirical study Public Space and Local Diversity: The Case of North East England ,

carried out in late 2004 by agencies One North East and Culture North East. This

study explored the cultural and economic life of five public spaces in the North East

of England (Townshend & Madanipour 2008, p. 325).



The numerous articles, reports, and opinion pieces cited throughout this review infer

substantial research must be conducted into the needs of the community when

attempting to increase visitation to public spaces within the Docklands. By

considering the needs and desires of the users in the context of functionality we may

gain an insight into what factors might facilitate a sense of community and identity

for the Docklands.

Acknowledging that VicUrban has recently conducted a survey into the desires of the

public, there is still a gap among the research as only those made aware and currently

invested in the process were seen to contribute. Further research is required to

ascertain which groups within the wider community are responding and how clearer

information and media design could be used to gain higher response rates among the

midst of current poor public perception of the area.



Bibliography

$1b makeover: A billion dollar development is offering a new vision for Docklands to transform the image of the

district 2009 [television program], Ten 5pm News, Ten Network Melbourne, 17 April 2009, TVNews, Informit,

viewed 18 March 2011

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2007, 2006 Census QuickStats: Docklands (State Suburb), cat. no. SSC21229,

ABS, viewed 15 March 2011, <http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ABSNavigation/prenav/LocationSearch?

collection=Census&period=2006&areacode=SSC21229&producttype=QuickStats&breadcrumb=PL&action=401#

Person%20Characteristics>.

Burns, A 2000, ‘Emotion and urban experience: Implications for design’, Design Issues, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 67-79,

EBSCOhost, viewed 16 March 2011.

Guthrie, J, March A, & March B 2006, Private Open Space for High Density Living , University of Melbourne,

viewed 17 March 2011 <www.urbandesignaustralia.com.au/.../Alan%20March%20final

%20paper.pdf>.

Carey,A, ‘Docklands power handover’, The Age (Melbourne), 8 July 2010, Australian/New Zealand Reference

Centre, EBSCOhost, viewed 16 March 2011.

City of Melbourne 2007, Delivering for Docklands. City of Melbourne, viewed 16 March 2011

<www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/.../DELIVERING_FOR_DOCKLANDS_2007.DOC>

Victoria Building and Layout Design, Department of Community Planning and Development, viewed 14 March

2011, <http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/33931/Guidelines_for_Higher_Density_

Residential_Development_3.pdf >

Docklands Library: The Docklands are will be given a public library following ten years of development 2010

[television program], ABC News Victoria, ABC1 Melbourne, Friday, 25th June 2010, TVNews, Informit, viewed

17 March 2011

Dovey, K & Sandercock, L 2002, ‘Hype and Hope: Imagining Melbourne's Docklands’, City, vol. 6, no.1, pp. 83-

100, EBSCOHost, viewed 19 March 2011.

Dowling, J & Lahey, K 2009, ‘Doyle call for council to take on Docklands’, The Age (Melbourne), 18 March

2009, Australian/New Zealand Reference Centre, EBSCOhost, viewed 16 March 2011.

Dowling, J & Lahey, K 2009, ‘In the docks’, The Age (Melbourne), 17 March 2009, Australian/New Zealand

Reference Centre, EBSCOhost viewed 18 March 2011.

Fukuda T, Kaga A, Izumo H & Terashima, T 2007, ‘Citizen participatory design methods using VR and a blog as

a media in the process’, International Journal of Architectural Computing , vol. 2, no. 7, pp. 217-233, EBSCOhost,

http://www.dpcd.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/33931/Guidelines_for_Higher_Density_%20Residential_Development_3.pdf






viewed 15 March 2011.

Gehl, J 1971, Life between buildings, Rudi.net, viewed 10 March 2011, <http://www.rudi.net/books/3610>

Gridley, H 2010, Breaking the cycle of disadvantage, Australian Psychological Society, viewed 9 March 2011,

< http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/APS-submission-Breaking-the-Cycle-of-Disadvantage%20Submission-Oct2010.pdf >.

Gross, D 2010, ‘Density may be a dirty word, but it’s needed if we’re to thrive’, The Melbourne Age,

Australian/New Zealand Reference Centre, EBSCOhost, viewed 20 March 2011

Keenan, A 1999, ‘On the waterfront’, The Melbourne Sunday Age, Australian/New Zealand Reference Centre,

EBSCOhost, viewed 18 March 2011.

L'Aoustet, O & Griffet, J 2004, Sharing public space: youth experience and socialisation in Marseille's Borely

Park , Space and Culture, viewed 20 March 2011, <http://sac.sagepub.com/content/7/2/173.full.pdf+html>

Macleod,A 2010, ‘Docklands is different, but that's no reason to write it off’, The Age (Melbourne), 17 March

2010, viewed 16 March 2011, <http://ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?

direct=true&db=anh&AN=SYD-5TL64O86WPC1IYP8X6QW&site=ehost-live&scope=site>.

Making public spaces safer through design 2010, Queensland Department of Local Government and Planning,

viewed March 18 2011, <http://www.dip.qld.gov.au/indigenous-councils/making-public-spaces-safer-through-

design.html>.

Robert Doyle Seeks Control of Docklands: Lord Mayor Robert Doyle is planning to seek control of Docklands

from the Victorian Government 2009 [television program], Seven Nightly News, Seven-Network Melbourne, 16

March 2009, TVNews, Informit, viewed 17 March 2011.

Townshend, T.G & Madanipour, A 2008, ‘Public space and local diversity: The case of North East England’, vol.

13, no. 3, pp. 317-328, E-Journals, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 March 2011.

VicUrban 2009, Docklands: The first decade, viewed 18 March 2011, <http://www.docklandsseconddecade.

com/history/>.

VicUrban 2011, Docklands: The second decade (shared draft version), viewed 18 March 2011, <http://www.

docklandsseconddecade.com/draft-shared-vision/>.

Whyte, W 1980, The social life of small urban places, Washington DC Conservation Foundation, viewed 18

March 2011, <http://www.pps.org/articles/wwhyte/>.

Wood, S 2009, ‘Desiring Docklands: Deleuze and urban planning discourse’, Planning Theory, vol. 8, no. 2, pp.

191-216, EBSCOhost, viewed 10 March 2011.

http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/APS-submission-Breaking-the-Cycle-of-Disadvantage%20Submission-Oct2010.pdf



http://opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/scratch2548/%3Chttp://ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/%20login.aspx?direct=true&db=anh&AN=SYD-5TL64O86WPC1IYP8X6QW&site=ehost-live&scope=site




http://www.dip.qld.gov.au/indigenous-councils/making-public-spaces-safer-through-design.html


http://www.pps.org/articles/wwhyte/







http://www.pps.org/articles/wwhyte/



Appendix A.

Figure 1. Key Areas of Melbourne's Docklands

Source: VicUrban 2009, Docklands: The first decade, viewed 18 March 2011, <http://www.docklands

seconddecade.com/history/>.

hdg407project01 detailed problem analysis group9 spacetastic resubmission-1

Documents