Industry Reflections
Current Theory and Relationship with Practice
Planning is fast becoming a race to the top, with many planners calling for densification through urban consolidation. However, this race has seen some planners call for people to get use to the idea of high-rise living as the population continues to expand; something people are not keen on. And, with the release of the updated SEQRP stating urban consolidation in the existing footprint is a focus, high rise living looks to be the only solution.
However, developments such as the Commonwealth Games Athletes Village or ‘Parklands Project’ are challenging this notion, by presenting mid-rise housing stock, something that isn’t seen much in Australian cities.
​
This form of housing, commercially referred to as ‘the missing middle’ provides the livability of low-rise, with the density of high rise. Such challenge to the status quo (bigger is better) has enabled the recognition of countless studies, research papers and planning theory’s coined by industry experts, primarily in the field of smart growth; which can be defined as ‘development that encourages a mix of building types and uses, diverse housing and transportation options, development within existing neighbourhoods, and community engagement’.
​
This relationship between current theory (smart growth) and practice comes from catalyst projects such as Parklands Projects, with their heavy focus on sustainable living; rated through Green Star, which is similar to smart growth in the sense that it seeks to create harmonious communities that facilitate active living, and community engagement through a mixture of housing types.
From my experience working with Green Star on the Parklands Project, I saw a large emphasis driven between planning theory and practice. This spoke volumes, as I knew that projects such as this are the reason for the higher uptake in planning theory; a trend I hope continues.
Overview of Industry & Impacts on Profession
The planning profession has seen large changes in the last 10 years with the commercialisation of artificial intelligence, focus on active living, urban consolidation, and sustainable living. Moreover, people in this generation have greater access to digital infrastructure than ever before; literally information at their fingertips. Such availability of information has proved useful to urban planners looking to reduce negative effects associated with past poor planning decisions.
Such poor planning decisions include:
Investment and reliance on freeways;
Urban sprawl; and
Use of greenspace for urban development.
Many of these poor planning decisions are the result of short term political election cycles, and the need for quick solutions. However, with a little investment in digital information sources such as, Uber, Google, educational institutions (Griffith, UQ, QUT) and government departments such as DILGP, poor planning decisions could be a thing of the past.
These digital information sources can tackle big issues like:
Climate Change – rising temperatures and increasing mortality mitigated through installation of green infrastructure;
Urban Sprawl – Missing Middle design competition (DILGP) encouraging developers to utilise land stock more effectively; and
Road Congestion – use of Google Maps and Uber to provide up-to-date and real time information on road demand.
However, it isn’t to say that the planning profession hasn’t already responded to these pressing issues. In South East Queensland, an updated version of their regional plan was released targeting 5 key themes: Grow, Prosper, Connect, Sustain and Live. These themes address the need for healthy, active lifestyles, affordable housing, enhancing biodiversity and ‘right-sizing’ the urban footprint. Moreover, planning vacancies are growing in the areas of open space and urban forestry after the commencement of the regional planning scheme; demonstrating a keen understanding of the issues at hand, and where investment is needed.
Therefore, I believe that the planning industry is adapting well to the impacts left by previous poor planning decisions and is on-track to innovate cities of the future.
Interests and Issues: The Attraction of Planning
Planning was never my first choice as a career, mainly because I didn’t know what it entailed. As a teenager I envisioned my life to be that of a landscape architect, influencing the lives of people and spaces between them.
My attraction to planning came about after dropping out of a degree in landscape architecture. From that point, I re-evaluated what I wanted as a career, and focused on what was important to me; a career which offered a mixture of design, science, geography, anthropology, and research. I believed that planning reciprocated my desires.
From the beginning of my planning journey I encountered significant issues, primarily the impact of developing mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety. These illnesses were relentless and unforgiving, and coping with them took many years of self-care, and reflection.
Then, just like that, a moment of serendipity! The ah ha moment. I figured out how to mitigate and even prevent depressive episodes. My eureka moment occurred after going for a bush walk in Springbrook. I was enveloped by its beauty and lack of commotion, something that is foreign in many Australian Cities like the Gold Coast.
It hit me, something so obvious, why am I always depressed in the city, but not in the bush? What elements of our cities are creating environments that are detrimental to our mental health? Is it as straight forward as more greenspace? These questions are now igniting conversations about urban design, planning practices, green infrastructure, active transportation, social planning, etc.
Planning for me is a justification for improving the mental wellness of others, and creating livable cities. Something which I believe the industry will benefit from.