With the recent provision of federal funding for the clean-up of the Macquarie Point railyards and a study identifying future development options for the site, the State Government has been provided with what is at once a significant opportunity and challenge.
There has been much discussion about the benefits of the funding and the work. These include, short term opportunities for the struggling building and construction sector; the establishment of a public transport corridor through the site connecting the city centre with other parts of Greater Hobart; and providing opportunities to expand the Antarctic and marine research functions of the Hobart Port.
There are however some significant challenges that if well understood and resolved could turn into key strengths of any redevelopment (I have focused on some of the planning and development related issues only and I have not necessarily discussed the inter-relationship between them):
• The site is proportionally large for Hobart. In addition, Hobart does not experience the population or development growth rate of other major cities in Australia. The result: The land uses and staging needs to be carefully planned. Too much of one type of land use has the potential to detract from other established or better located (for that land use) areas and too much land release at once can result in oversupply bring down land values across the board. We do not need the railyards to be competing with other areas (including the city centre and the Salamanca area of Sullivans Cove) as the metropolitan area can only generate so much demand. The term complimentary should be at the back of the minds of the project team at all times.
• With a slow growth rate and less economic activity than other major cities, redevelopments in Hobart have a much longer life span. Instead of say 25 years until it is redeveloped again, it is likely to be at least 50 years. The result: the redevelopment needs to be successful in both the short and long term, as otherwise we will be stuck with a white elephant for a really long time. Also, the construction standard and design needs to be of the highest quality and of such that it does not ‘date’ quickly. Articulating the objectives at the front of the project and constantly checking progress against these must be done.
• Both state and local government have already expended resources and effort in establishing the major strategic directions for Greater Hobart. Firstly through the Southern Tasmania Regional Land Use Strategy and secondly through the draft Capital City Plan. These documents deal with big pictures planning issues and it can be difficult to transfer these thoughts down to the site level, particularly as they are ‘new’ elements in the planning system. The result: the redevelopment of the railyards ends up being inconsistent with the metropolitan plan for Greater Hobart and therefore it is not the most efficient use of the land and financial resources at our disposal. These documents should be the starting point for any strategic land use planning analysis, such as that being currently done by DEDTA’s consultants AEC Group.
• It is easy with a large site such as this to forget about the surrounding sites, activity and services. For example, the Hobart City Council has just released a draft Master Plan for the Domain area which includes potential changes to the Cenotaph and Regatta area. ,b>The result: the redevelopment is internally focused resulting in lost opportunities for connectivity and creation of off-site impacts both physically and visually to the surrounding land, affecting the site’s attractiveness to investors and users.
• The site is also adjacent to the Hobart Port. While this port now has a limited freight function, it is still critically important infrastructure and can be noisy and dusty. Protecting the port from land use conflict and vis versa is essential. The result: if not adequately addressed right from the start through to the finish not only will it affect the port’s function but it will detract from the redevelopment.
• The site is also exposed to the prevailing weather. It is also located on the southern side of the Cenotaph, meaning that the parts of the site adjacent to escarpment are overshadowed. The result: the site can be uncomfortable in certain weather conditions and winter. Open spaces, places for people and pedestrian corridors need to be carefully planned in light of these site conditions.
• The extent of change will establish a new character for the area. The character and how ‘authentic’ it is will play a major role in its long term success. The Hobart waterfront has a major asset already in its authenticity. Hobartians use the space on a day to day basis and it is this that adds to its appeal for visitors. Lack of attention to authenticity and character can often happen when there are timing pressures or too much focus on short term benefits. The result: no one who lives or invests in Hobart actually wants to use any spaces created due to lack of amenity, character and pleasantness.
• Big picture issues such as strategic context are now being thought about, but small scale issues will need to be planned for in the end. It is all very well, decontaminating the site, constructing major infrastructure, carving it up into smaller parcels and identifying the desirable land uses, but forgetting about the small details and then ensuring that they are implemented could be disastrous. Particularly if the money starts running out and everyone is focused on getting the quick tick in the box. The result: great ideas, poor execution. In running terms this project should be treated like a marathon not a fun run! This of course links into my second dot point. A lot could be learnt by just looking at Wapping (which was given funding under the Better Cities Program for its redevelopment) and comparing what was planned against what has happened.
• Sullivans Cove is probably one of the most ‘planned’ areas in Australia and definitely in Tasmania. There are numerous master plans, frameworks etc. all of which effectively further the same principles which were in the foundation document “The Sullivans Cove Planning Review”, albeit reflecting contemporary circumstances, such as the changed function of Hobart port. In addition the Sullivans Cove Waterfront Authority completed an urban design strategy for the railyards in 2008. My point being, do not reinvent the wheel if it isn’t needed. If it is …the result: a waste of money, time and resources that could have been put to better use.
Unfortunately, the commencement of the project is already marred in some people’s view by actions already taken by government, including the awarding of a direct source tender, the decision to establish a development authority and the subsequent direct appointment of its new CEO without any advertisement.
With regard to the development authority, I do support its establishment. It creates a politically free independent body that can focus not only on short term benefits but the long term outcomes. It also can operate in a manner similar to a private enterprise, offering opportunities for efficiencies in expenditure and decision making that is just not possible within the public service. Importantly a development authority is not a planning authority, which was what the previous Sullivans Cove Waterfront Authority (SCWA) was. I am sure that some in government, industry and the community were hoping that the SCWA was going to achieve what a development authority – who is given land management functions – could.
But SCWA only had the same regulatory (and hence reactive) functions as any other local planning authority, which meant right from the start it was not able to live up to those expectations. The development authority should also not been seen as another layer of bureaucracy. It effectively takes of the land management powers of Government as owner and ensures that the job gets done. Other regulatory powers and functions I understand will remain as they are. Any new planning controls that are deemed necessary for the site, would just replace those that exist.
Putting aside the bumpy start, it is positive that the government is getting the authority up and running so quickly. State government expertise is already in place. It now needs to be ensured that other important skills and knowledge are bought to the team. I give two examples, amongst many.
Firstly, the HWDC is going to not only be responsible for decontamination but other construction elements, including infrastructure provision, subdivision and land release and directly facilitating its redevelopment. Someone on hand that understands, for example, the causes of construction delays, cost factors, the property market and its responsiveness is critical. The project plan and management for the site needs to be grounded in what can realistically be achieved.
Secondly, bringing experience in the planning system into the project on a day to day basis would also be invaluable. The last thing that the project needs is finding out that what they were hoping would be achieved through the planning system, is either not possible or unlikely to be acceptable. The planning system often becomes a problem when it gets to the statutory phases of drawing up scheme amendments, seeking approval from the Commission and submitting development applications, because the strategic land use planning framework and the implementation tools available within the planning system were either not factored in early enough or well understood.
It is not often that we are handed an opportunity like this. I for one am excited about what could be achieved and will be watching with interest as to the redevelopment’s progression.
Emma Riley is the immediate past president of the Tasmanian Division of the Planning Institute of Australia
