News

Building character

[ The University of Melbourne Voice Vol. 5, No. 7  12 October - 8 November 2009 ]

A stimulus-based splurge in infrastructure spending may help the economy, writes David Scott, however it may not hold all the answers to the future of urban development in Melbourne, particularly in the suburbs.

In 1924, the American historian and writer Lewis Mumford wrote: “The mass of our buildings can never be better or worse than the institutions that have shaped them”. It’s a point Professor Paolo Tombesi, the new Chair in Construction at the Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, is keen to reiterate when it comes to any discussion about the construction components of Australia’s Nation Building: Economic Stimulus Plan. While the plan has its detractors – Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull believes it will raise taxes and interest rates, there are concerns about rapid density increases in public housing. A recent case raised in the Melbourne media flagged the somewhat unbelievable proposition that one country school will have to destroy amenities it funded through a bake sale to make way for a new stimulus-backed gym. Professor Tombesi believes the rationale behind most of the individual components is defendable.

“If you look at the various programs outlined in the (Federal Government’s) stimulus package (and related measures), one by one all the essential items seem to be there – institution building, small community infrastructure, regional maintenance programs, social housing, vocational training, innovation frameworks, etc. In other words, the big picture fundamentals have not been overlooked. Whether or not rhetoric and reality will match, however, will depend on program co-ordination, implementation procedures and details. Will the stock being built only increment or replace the amount of space available, or will it do it in ways that will ameliorate our environment and expand our knowledge? From this point of view, the scrutiny should move from the political programs to the industrial tactics underpinning them.”

Besides, “When you are trying to make an assessment on the effectiveness of such a large-scale plan, you have to consider the reasons the policies are introduced. And in this instance, all the associated documents make it clear that this large-scale infrastructure spend is predominantly about job generation and job sustenance,” says Professor Tombesi.

In announcing the $42 billion dollar package late last year, the Federal Government estimated it would support 90,000 jobs through to 2010 alone. Of that, $800 million was earmarked for community projects, $711 million to roads upgrades, $16.2 billion to boost school infrastructure and almost $6 billion over the next three years for new social housing or upgrades to existing public housing.

Professor Tombesi says that turning to large-scale construction programs to aid a troubled economy is by no means a new practice. “The government has taken the classic view of construction as the ‘balance wheel of the economy’, whereby you inject capital into activities that can be started immediately and have strong resource distributive effects. But while this may be the case, there is no doubt that some of the programs have been brought forward quickly and somewhat rigidly, perhaps providing more of a jolt to state and local government and industry than a shock absorption pad.

With the onus in responding in a timely manner to the funding opportunities left to decentralised agencies, it is likely that many development options will have to follow the templates provided centrally. How good – or appropriate – is the template in all its parts then becomes the real question.”

The debate about ‘needs’ versus ‘wants’ is certainly timely. At a time when the Government is using rapid, large-scale, high-density housing as a means to keep the economy ticking over, there is very real resistance to urban densification, according to Professor Kim Dovey. “A lot of the urban development being considered is focused on intensified developments along transport lines (trams, trains, etc) and in activity centres. Many of the arguments against such intensification focus on a potential loss of ‘place’ and ‘character’.”

He argues, however, that “Neighbourhood ‘character’ is not a fixed and stable condition, rather the dynamic result of creative urban design and community engagement”.

Kim Dovey, Professor of Architecture and Urban Design, along with Research Fellow Ian Woodcock, is completing an ARC Linkage Research Project into Intensifying Places: The Character of Urban Intensification. Professor Dovey argues that buildings of no more than five storeys are necessary to achieve sustainable outcomes and that Meburnians are open to a more sustainable and walkable city.

“Character is inseparably social and physical; opposition to bulky buildings can blur into opposition to different kinds of people,” he says. “Yet the character is also often seen as a diversity of both people and buildings where dynamism and change are integral to place identity.

“A sense of place and character are unavoidable in construction,” says Professor Tombesi. “For better or worse, buildings provide character to the city they are part of by virtue of their physical presence and composition,” he says.

“Both Central and Outer Melbourne are good examples of urban environments strongly determined by industry practices and logics, which have to do with investment strategies, building processes, land subdivision patterns and regulatory spaces. If not kept in check, building types are Darwinian in this sense. They adapt to the economic and political environment, all the way from the suburbs to the CBD.”

Inevitably, says Professor Dovey, if Australian cities – particularly Melbourne – are to preserve their character and become ‘low-carbon’ increased density will follow. Latest estimates by the Clinton Climate Initiative says cities consume some 75 per cent of the world’s energy and are responsible for 80 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions.

“Distances will be shorter, functions are mixed and where walking, cycling and public and transport have the highest priority,” he says. “The key to implementation of a low-carbon future is the quality of local urban design and integrated planning.”

In his speech at the University’s Festival of Ideas in June, the Dean of the Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, Professor Tom Kvan, flagged a new kind of city, one that met this low-carbon desire, but preserved the high-density, high character functions residents deem as a high priority: the responsive city.

“Cities are not evil, they are a social construct and their forms are manifestations of collective aspirations. Recognising that in Australia, it has been argued that the national identity is closely tied to suburban and low-density living, we cannot avoid the question of whether this model can be continued and whether it can be propagated as a model in emerging and expanding cities in the region.

“We need to imagine what cities can be, and we need to find ways to finance the realisation. The future of cities is a matter of the greatest urgency and one that we cannot approach with cultural complacency or myopia. We need to consider whether we can envision a city in which the aspirations of a lifestyle engaged with the outdoors, catering to the full range of family activities for all age groups, are reconciled with our desperate need to substantially reduce our carbon footprint. Whether our suburbs are consigned, at best, to be the commutable sin of the twentieth century or if they have a sustainable future, and whether we can conceive of cities that are productive and responsive rather than consuming and static.”

Whatever the future of cities, and while in the short term Australia’s economic needs are addressed by infrastructure investment, Professor Tombesi wonders whether the entire package will yield all its possible returns, or whether it will be looked at in the future as a partially missed opportunity.

“If you build something now, you’re not going to build it again in a year or two,” he says.

“So we are investing a lot of resources in our future at a speed some industry analysts could consider excessive, particularly when such an ambitious capital works program could function as a great laboratory to reflect on and experiment with specific components of the building industry.

“No doubt, it’s very complicated.”

Professor Paolo Tombesi will give his Inaugural Professorial Lecture as Chair of Construction, Inventing Innovation on 20 October at the University of Melbourne.