Just a quick note, since students won’t be using this blog this term, that readers who monitor the discussion here, might want to wander over to another new student course blog - Scribbling on Bricks - which will be featuring student work on Property, Planning and Economics this term.

New Urbanism, an urban design concept that began in the United States over 20 years ago, has created ripples and division of opinions there and in many developed worlds over the years, including Australia. It has also found favour in certain parts of UK, Australia and United States, with New Urbanism principles found in urban areas such as Park DuValle in Louisville, Summerset in Pittsburgh, Sherford in South Devon, Upton in Northampton, Claisebrook Village in East Perth, and Beacon Cove in Port Melbourne (Victoria).

New Urbanism has been defined as “a movement that promotes neo-traditional neighbourhood-based urban design” (Kelbaugh, D, p.1), with an emphasis on a pedestrian based town centre and on sustainability. It was initially a reaction to sprawl and is now a basis for addressing physical health and social well-being and for sustainable urban growth and smart growth (Morris, 2006).

The basic element is of a walkable neighbourhood which, besides a variety of housing choices, can consist of a corner store, child care centre, post box, bus stop and several small businesses which provide a walkable focus for the local community (Morris, 2006). Generally, the neighbourhood has a 400 metres walkable radius (Morris, 2006) and its design provides for chance meetings and privacy (Carter, 2004).

Supporters of New Urbanism have found many merits in the concept, namely:

• Its ability to accommodate people in life-cycle housing, allowing them to go from raising children to retirement years without having to move from the community in which they have established roots and friends (Carter, 2004);
• A concern for the environment is integrated into community design in various ways such as through regional and local connections to transit (Carter, 2004);
• An emphasis on public space, which results in an ease of pedestrian access and the provision of a well-defined and high quality public realm (Hulme, 2005);
• A variety of housing designs as exemplified in the city of Bahcesehir in Turkey where there were a variety of houses, small mid-rise flats, and villas, with a nod to its history through the employment of traditional Turkish and Ottoman styles (Miller, 2000);
• New Urbanist developments often can overcome opposition (such as Not In My Backyard [NIMBYism], environmental restrictions, and attitudes and laws opposing growth) through strong master plans and design codes exhibiting sensitivity to the community, the environment, and the historic context (Carter, 2004); and
• Compact and dense development also can preserve land, and buildings, parks, trails, and conservation areas can be sited to preserve prime environmental assets such as wetlands, woodlands, and animal habitats (Carter, 2004).

However, there are detractors of the concept who question the fervour with which it has been embraced. Some of the criticisms levelled against the concept include:

• Its solutions are sometimes considered too formulaic and physically deterministic, relying too much on design to generate desired forms of community and patterns of behaviour (Marshall, 2003);
• An ongoing challenge is the viability of vertical mixed use, with apartments or officers ground-floor retail (Carter, 2004);
• It is not clear that a preference for neighbourhood and community will easily displace America’s (and Australia’s) love affair with the car even if such a displacement is economically feasible (Harvey, 1997);
• In the absence of employment and government largesse, the ‘civic’ claims of the new urbanism come across as weak (Harvey, 1997);
• New Urbanism and Smart Growth opposes ‘sprawl’ which is a North American term and misused in Australia, which has development control systems, regional and local infrastructure planning mechanisms and public transport networks that American New Urbanism would dream of (Gleeson, B, 2006); and
• Community has always meant different things to different people, and doubts are raised over a uniform definition of community defined by New Urbanism (Harvey, 1997).

Having personally visited Claisebrook Village in East Perth as part of the Young Planners Conference in April this year, I was impressed by its close (walkable) proximity to shops, beautifully designed apartments and units, open green spaces and a lake, which made it a scenic neighbourhood. However, its compact housing design and the high cost of each unit (which I was told was at least $1 million each), putting the choice of such an ideal neighbourhood out of the reach of the average family, made me baulk at the idea of being a part of it . The design of each dwelling looked very much like each other with very limited ability of each home owner to put his own design stamp on his house.

Some pics of Claisebrook Village taken when I was at the conference:

Therefore, do you think New Urbanism currently has a place in urban design and is it the way you would plan your urban areas?

Does it adequately address urban problems such as traffic congestion, lack of a backyard or open spaces, and high density urban areas?

If not, what aspects of New Urbanism would you ditch and what aspects will you incorporate, as a planner?

Do you agree with the merits and flaws cited above? What other weaknesses or merits do you find in New Urbanism?

Are there other planning and design concepts, besides New Urbanism, that adequately address the increasing urban density of our towns and cities?

References

1) Carter, D., “New Urbanist Tenets” in Urban Land, Vol. 63, no. 5, May 2004, p. 62-64.2) Gleeson, B., “Towards a new Australian suburbanism” in Australian planner, Vol. 43, no. 1, 2006, p. 8-16.

The current local government & planning reforms in Queensland are designed to shift planning to a new ‘regional’ level through the amalgamation of many local Councils into regional ‘communities of interest’ (http://www.strongercouncils.qld.gov.au/Home.aspx), with increased planning controls at state government rather than local government level, & water resources brought under state control (http://www.nrw.qld.gov.au/water/reform/pdf/info_paper2.pdf).

Debate still rages over whether this model will increase or reduce control of development, protect habitat, & deliver better infrastructure outcomes under the pressures Queensland is currently experiencing as a ‘boom state’. An alternative view argues that planning at this higher level – in particular statutory planning, can be dictatorial, inflexible, & out of touch with local communities.

A range of academic perspectives address the issue of ‘economies of scale’ in planning, albeit peripherally. Given the current climate, it is worth exploring in its own right.

Historically, it is clear that the level of governance at which planning occurs has a major impact on planning outcomes. Mannheim (1968) argued that in the “Great Society” we are today (p.4), appropriate ‘economies of scale’ are needed in planning, while Geddes (1968 [1915]) demonstrates the value of considering the spatial dimensions of an issue. Cursory attempts at planning & regulation during Australia’s settlement, for instance, occurred at the most remote governance level – ie. from England – & were largely ignored (Marsden (2000)).

Much of the critique on governance levels in planning historically was based in the prevailing political frameworks of the time: for instance, Marxist planners argued for state control to prevent the vagaries of the market ruling urban development (Engels (1845)), while ‘liberal’ planners argued for a mixed economy, where rules made either for or by the market would guide development of their own accord.

Considerable work on appropriate ‘landscape scale’ has been undertaken in the field of environmental science which could be applied in a planning context: it is now understood in natural resources management that in order to be effective, issues need to be addressed at their appropriate landscape scale (Paton et al (2004), p.259).

Gleeson (2003) notes the influence of reform currents in governance, in particular “an emphasis on policy integration across traditional portfolio boundaries to produce new legislative & strategic frameworks for planning” as well as new spatial governance frameworks (pp.767-8).

In contrast to the environment field, where participation at all levels is necessary (Agrawal & Gibson (2001), p.634), the statutory planning process needs to be discrete & quarantined from political influence. However, the governance level at which it is located is critical to positive outcomes. One could question whether state government has more power than local government to assert development control, as is currently being argued by the Queensland Government, or whether local-level statutory planning has an accountability to local communities that state intervention lacks (LGAQ Submission (2007)).

I argue that a range of governance levels in planning are required both to address issues at differing landscape scales & to ensure accountability in processes & outcomes, & that the development of such structures in the environment field lead the way in this regard

Buxton et al (2006) note the rationale for council amalgamation in the Kennett era in Victoria was “…to make local government subservient to state development priorities” (p.18). Where such development priorities override the amenity of local communities, the lack of strong local representation in the planning process can present a problem.

Strategic planning is often seen to be appropriate at a higher level of governance than statutory planning – notwithstanding the principle that these streams should be integrated in an effective planning process (Whitzman (2004), p.242). Recent changes flagged by the Queensland Government include the proviso that all regional plans will be statutory State planning instruments (Planning for a Prosperous Queensland (2007), p.19).

While the Constitution leaves land use & ownership to the states under ‘implied powers’ (Aikten & Orr (2002:75), there is nonetheless a national landscape scale at which planning can be most effective. ‘Macro’ issues such as climate change & the water crisis come to mind: the recent role of the federal government through the Murray Darling Basin Commission is an example of this – it is also an example of the lack of thought about structures for power sharing required for such negotiation. National & state infrastructure projects are another clear area of larger landscape scales.

Planning on a regional scale, with the involvement of all 3 tiers of government, provides an opportunity – not least because no one tier ‘owns’ a regional area, & the cooperation of all are required to obtain positive outcomes. However, for initiatives to have statutory force, an existing statutory body is required for development assessment & response. A response based on relevant landscape scale would require the setting of clear criteria in order to avoid a jurisdictional nightmare.

The concept of subsidiary lends itself to resolving this dilemma. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘subsidiarity’ as the idea that any central authority should have a subsidiary function only, performing tasks that cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level. According to this model, policy development & implementation is undertaken as close as possible to local communities, but cannot compromise agreed objectives at the local, state & national levels (Spiller (2004)).

While this approach is already practiced in Australia to some degree through the system of tied grants from the federal government to the states, it could be extended readily to the state-local arena. It would certainly lend greater weight to strategic planning, & would shift the power base down towards the grassroots level, rather than enshrining it at the apex of the pyramid as the Queensland process seeks to do.

The SEQ Regional Plan 2006 – 2026 attempts to provide a statutory regional planning framework for local government, dividing SEQ into five regional land use categories with Regulatory Provisions to control each area. State and local governments are both required to meet the requirements of the Plan when reviewing development applications, in amending their planning schemes or developing related policies or codes.

Local Governments are required to have Growth Management Plans, as well as an Integrated Planning Scheme. However, few local Councils have developed these to date, & the integrated of development assessment process within the Integrated Planning Act 1997 has proven burdensome to local government, slowing both assessment & development response processes to a crawl in many local Councils.

The recent move to local governments amalgamation on the basis of regional ‘communities of interest’ is a further attempt in that direction. The argument is that regional alliances through the Regional Organisations of Councils or ‘ROCs’ have failed to deliver real outcomes (REF).

The Queensland Government has now developed new statutory provisions to further control development at a state level through streamlining the development assessment process, coordinating infrastructure planning, a template for Council planning schemes, a shift to mediation for dispute resolution, & the establishment of the Urban Land Development Authority with extensive planning & development approval powers.

Questions

Is bigger necessarily better in planning? Is accountability reduced the more remote decisions become from those they affect? Does the ‘machine’ of planning processes become too inflexible in a larger political structure?

Should strategic planning be integrated with statutory planning at every level of governance?

Is the concept of ‘subsidiarity’ applicable to the planning process?

Is the forced amalgamation of local government in Queensland warranted for the greater good?

References

Agrawal, A. and Gibson, C.C. (2001) Enchantment and Disenchantment: TheRole of Community in Natural Resource Conservation, World Development,27(4): 629-649.

Aitken,G. & Orr, R. (2002), “The Australian Consitution”, in The Australian Government Solicitor, Chapter 5.

Buxton, M., Tieman, G., Bekessy, S., Budge, T., Mercer, D., Coote, M. and Morcombe, J., 2006. Change and Continuity in Peri-Urban Australia: State of the Peri-Urban Regions: A Review of the Literature, Monograph 1, Chapter 8: Governance for land use in peri-urban Australia, pp. 232-249.

Engels, F. (1969 [1845]) in The Condition of the Working Class in England, Panther Edition, Institute of Marxism-Leninism, Moscow [online] http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/co ndition-working-class/ch04.htm [accessed 24 February 2007].

Ewing, S. (2003) Catchment Management Arrangements. In Dovers, S. & Wild River, S. (Eds.) Managing Australia’s Resources. Melbourne, The Federation Press, pp. 393-412.

Geddes, Patrick (1968 [1915]) “City Survey for Town Planning Purposes, of Municipalities and Governments” ch. 16 in Cities in Evolution: an Introduction to the Town Planning Movement and to the Study of Civics, intro. P. Johnson-Marshall, Howard Fertig: New York.

Gleeson, Brendan (2003) “The Difference that Planning Makes” Environment and Planning A , vol. 35, pp. 761-70.

Local Government Association of Queensland (2007) Submission to the Local Government Reform Commission, LGAQ in http://www.townsville.qld.gov.au/wwwdocs/yourcouncil/docs/LGAQ_Submission.pdf

Local Government Association of Queensland (2007) Supplementary Submission to the Local Government Reform Commission, LGAQ

Mannheim, Karl (1968 [1950]) “Main Symptoms of the Crisis” ch. 1 in Freedom,Power & Democratic Planning, Hans Gerth and Ernest Bramstedt eds, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, London, pp. 3-21.

Marsden, S. (2000) “The Introduction of Order”, ch. 2 in Troy, P (ed) A History of European Housing in Australia, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, pp. 26-40. Mumford, Lewis (1961) “Commercial Expansion and Urban Dissolution”, ch. 14 in The City in History: Its Origins, Its Transformations, and Its Prospects, London, Seeker & Warburg, pp. 468-507.

Paton, S., Curtis, A., McDonald, G. and Woods, M., 2004, Regional Natural

Resource Management: Is it Sustainable?, Australian Journal of EnvironmentalManagement, 11(4): 259-267.

Queensland Government (2005) SEQ Regional Plan 2006 – 2026 in http://www.oum.qld.gov.au/?id=29

Queensland Government (2007) Planning for a Prosperous Queensland in http://www.ipa.qld.gov.au/ipaReview/reform_agenda_report.asp

Spiller, M. (2004) “Planning for Community – A Governance Perspective” in Changing the Way Government Works, Institute of Public Administration Australia

Whitzman, Caroline (2004) “The Crisis in Planning (Don’t Yawn! Don’t Turn the Page!” Urban Policy and Research, vol. 22, no. 4, December, pp. 341-43.

One would have to be living under a rock to not have noticed the incredible shift in public appreciation and understanding of the reality of climate change and push towards sustainability, at both a community and government level. Yet despite this swing in attitudes, getting renewable energy developments “across the line”, to combat one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions – energy production and consumption, can be an extremely arduous process as a result of the regulatory frameworks and the politics that surround them.

Renewable energy developments from a planning perspective are generally split into two categories, domestic and large scale / commercial. To provide a quick background most domestic renewable energy installations, particularly in urban areas are of the solar variety, and as such most local planning regulations are specifically related to the installation of solar. While council policy varies, in general these installations are considered as part of building and works. As stated in the City of Melbourne’s Guidelines for solar technology installations in residential areas (2001) “the installation of rooftop solar technology does not constitute construction of a building, as defined in the Planning and Environment Act 1987, it does constitute an external alteration to a building”. Therefore contacting the local planning authority is necessary to determine if a planning application is needed. Building permits and heritage permits may also be required depending on overlays and so on. As far as other domestic renewable energy solutions, such as wind, specific planning guidelines at a local level are almost non-existent as these installations have not yet reached critical mass. Therefore most council’s are treating them on a case by case basis (Webb, 2007). This can cause confusion and lots of red tape and raises the question – should local councils take a more proactive approach in determining guidelines for various domestic renewable energy installations?

Large scale or commercial applications of renewable energy technologies, however, are a whole different ball game and one that is prone to intense public debate and politicisation.

While federal government processes are the primary driver for the viability of the industry, via policy development and provision (or lack of) of market based incentives. In most instances renewable developments falls under state planning processes.

In a Victorian context, most commercial renewable energy installation trigger state planning frameworks as they tend to have expected generation capacity of 30 MW or greater , which under the planning framework, automatically installs the Minister for Planning as the responsible authority (SEAV, 2003). The Victorian government has been a proactive driver for a cohesive state planning framework for renewable energy installations, particularly for wind, through specific state planning policy , planning guidelines and the general provision of a consistent, streamlined assessment process(SEAV, 2003).Yet despite these provisions, intense community opposition surrounding the location of large commercial wind farms can create real barriers to the planning process, and can unfortunately result in its politicisation. This is evidenced in the now infamous Bald Hills Wind Farm decision of 2006. A situation which threatened the viability of renewable energy developments at the core.

To provide a background, federal involvement in the development process is triggered, where a proposal has the potential to affect a “matter of national significance” under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). In which case the project in question will be deemed a ‘controlled action” and an Environment Effects Statement or similar must be undertaken, and federal approval gained (Auswind, 2006). In the case of Bald Hills, which triggered EPBC Act approval, this process was used as a means of vetoing the project to push specific political agendas.

To elaborate, Federal Minister of Environment Ian Campbell, overturned state planning approval for the project on the basis that the wind farm had the potential to further endanger the Orange-bellied parrot. This is despite an independent panel inquiry into the impacts of the project, which determined that the project did not pose an unacceptable threat to the species, as a.) there has only been historical sightings of the bird near the site and it was not on its migratory route (Minchin et al, 2006, Hogan 2006), unlike many other wind farms which were on the parrots migratory route and had already gained federal approval under the very same government, and b.) environmental management & mitigation measures had been put in place to protect the species. Herein lies the controversy, as Bald Hills Wind Farm was located in the marginal seat of McMillan and had turned into the hot election topic for the region, with Minister Campbell at one stage writing to residents during local election campaigning to assure them that a wind farm would not go ahead if a liberal government was elected to the seat. The EPBC Act was used as a means to veto the project to meet the political promise made to the electorate of McMillan by Minister Campbell. Thankfully, Minister Campbell’s decision was reversed following a court challenge by the Victorian Government, but not without the planning process being so blatantly undermined along the way.

So where does this leave the renewable energy industry. What are the main barriers?

Firstly, at the very high level, the current government has withdrawn its support for renewable energy development in favour of nuclear and clean coal agendas. As such the market based incentives and policies required to make the industry viable are not there. However, fortunately, states, such as Victoria and New South Wales are creating their own market based incentives to support the industry and with that have provided a supportive, cohesive planning framework to assess these developments.

Yet, this is still not enough to get such developments across the line, as renewable energy developments are extraordinarily prone to NIMBYism. Despite the general community being all for climate change prevention, greenhouse gas emission reduction and renewable energy in theory, as soon as one is located near certain communities, outrage reaches extraordinary highs. This is despite best efforts of the wind industry to develop best practice guidelines, landscape values projects, national codes and conduct intensive community consultation to reach positive community outcomes. What instead has resulted from this intense community opposition is renewable energy developments becoming a political pawn, with planning frameworks being the chess board.

While many questions can be drawn specific to the renewable energy development debate (Are the planning frameworks in place sufficient? Do they provide enough direction in “appropriate” development to achieve acceptable community outcomes? Etc), I believe the biggest question of all which is highlighted through this renewable energy example is – Are political agendas undermining the planning process?

References

Auswind (2006) Best Practice Guidelines for Implementation of Wind Energy Projects in Australia online.

City of Melbourne (2001) Guidelines for solar technology installations in the City of Melbourne’s residential areas online

Hogan J (2006) Fury over wind farm decision, The Age, 5 April online

Minchin L, Khadem N and Ker P (2006) Feathers fly over wind farm ban, The Age, 6 April online

Sustainable Energy Authority Victoria (SEAV) (2003) Policy and planning guidelines for development of wind energy facilities in Victoria online

Webb A (2007) The viability of Domestic Wind Turbines for Urban Melbourne, Alternative Technology Association online

Websites of Interest

http://www.auswind.org/

http://www.ata.org.au

http://www.sv.sustainability.vic.gov.au/renewable_energy/index.asp

http://www.growingvictoria.vic.gov.au/

http://www.greenhouse.vic.gov.au/

Liveable neighbourhoods are based on new urbanism principles and have innovative design to improve residents’ lifestyles and building the community. They promote ‘nodal’ development; support the use of public transport, and walkable neighbourhood clustering. Transit-oriented development (TOD) is an important component, as are main street commercial and medium density residential developments.

Lots are orientated to open space with access from the rear and the neighbourhoods provide for a variety of density of development to create diversity and lifestyle choices in close proximity to recreation and commercial facilities. Liveable neighbourhoods aim for high quality landscaping and urban environment sometimes including public art.

“New urbanism is associated with community planning based on compactness, walkability, liveability, mixed uses and high design and development standards”, (Freestone, 2007).

The ‘city beautiful’ model’s impact can be seen today in the formal design of residential estates, parks and open space. New estates such as Arlington Rise, Settlers Run, Somerly, Harbour Rise and Fernbrooke all subscribe to the liveable neighbourhoods philosphy.

“Conventional car-based suburban extensions have become a thing of the past under Western Australia’s new Liveable Neighbourhoods code”, (Morris, 2006).

The national leader in new urbanism development is Perth. Successful projects featuring mixed use, walkable urban development were toured during a conference on New Urbanism in 2006. Given that the Planning Report Card 2006 results showed that Western Australia has the highest rate of community participation, this may be just one reason why new urbanism has succeeded in Perth.

In comparing Sydney and Melbourne, Sydney has been described as treating its pedestrians as second-class citizens, while Melbourne has been applauded for inviting people back into the city. Danish architect and urban planner, Dr Jan Gehl, believes that Sydney’s pedestrians are in a class below cars, often spending up to half their journey waiting for traffic lights.

While, Steve Vizard gives the following description of Canberra, “Canberra, Sunday … and our nation’s capital is deserted. Quarter of a million people are suppose to live here. This is supposed to be Australia’s largest inland city. But … I don’t see more than twelve residents at a time. I’m not convinced that there are more than a dozen people running this joint on a fabricated Emerald City-type arrangement. The city is an empty Brobdingnagian cemetery full of outsized marble icons festooned with giant kangaroos and implacable emus.

“An every-Australian suburb, neat, subdued, everthing in its place: Duntroon, the war memorial, Lake Burley Griffen, monuments, sweating marble and heat. Embassies impersonating fast-food outlets. A contrived Balinese temple, a giant-footed pagoda. Not a person in sight. Not a hair out of place. Embassyland. A little too clean, rubbishless, carless, smogless, messless, humourless, peopleless. A suburb in waiting.”

Sustainability, liveability and urban design have become the challenges facing planning. Balancing and integrating social, economic and environmental factors is fundamental to the idea of sustainable development. Although as Freestone (2007) argues that imagination has to be always reigned in by practical considerations. Striking the right balance can prove a long and bruising story.

Transit-oriented development aims to provide compact, walkable communities, however, developers and agencies associated with TOD’s should be careful that they do not end up with a struggling community beside a bypass road, that in the end sucks the life out of the area, bankrupts the businesses and changes the very fabric of the community.

Obesity in children, not just adults, is becoming more and more common and at an alarming rate. Professionals such as Dr Carol Whitzman are arguing that the lack of walkable neighbourhoods is contributing to a lack of exercise in children and adults.

“The roots of the planning profession are in public health”, (Whitzman, 2006), however public health issues have now moved on from being about clean water and good sanitation. Public health is now about obesity, heart disease, diabetes and lack of exercise.

The Victorian division of PIA’s Planning for Health and Well-Being Project is encouraging planners to “influence local urban design so that health is ‘planned in’ rather than ‘planned out’”.

The growing advocacy for better bike and foot paths, walkable communities that have facilities within walkable distances and times from each other are essential components for new urbanism developments.

As Charles Landry states, the aim of cities today must be to ‘think of your city as if it were a living work of art where citizens can involve and engage themselves in the creation of a transformed space. This will involve different creativities: the creativity of the engineer, the social worker, the planner, the business person, the events organiser, the architect, the housing specialists, IT specialists, psychologists, historians, anthropologists, natural scientists, environmentalists, artists of all kinds and, most importantly, ordinary people living their lives as citizens. This is comprehensive creativity.”

Community engagement techniques such as those espoused by Dr Ned Crosby are a fantastic method to ensure participation in development projects. Dr Crosby invented the citizen jury process which is known in such guises as Wisdom Councils, Dynamic Facilitation, Deliberative Surveys, World Cafe and 21st Century Town Meetings.

In 2005, four Australian cities ranked in the top ten list of international cities ranking on urban quality of life. The EIU (Economist Intelligence Unit) ranks 127 cities worldwide.

My question is this, how do we take all of the information, historical, geographical, social, etc. and make it all work to everyone’s advantage? Canberra was supposed to be a model liveable city, but it comes across as cold and lifeless. How do we create walkable neighbourhoods with great ‘walkscores’ and reduced traffic without encouraging people to bypass the commercial areas altogether?

How, as planners, do we create places that people want to live in, work in, play in, walk in, communicate in, belong to and encourage growth in?

The answer has to be in community engagement and participation. Dr Crosby’s community engagement techniques appear to foster community empowerment and ownership. Our universities must teach planning students different participatory skills and tools for community engagement. Local, state and federal government must employ these techniques to ensure that the community is involved and engaged in major development projects.

References and Further Reading

Anonymous (2005) Creating Communities Newsletter Winter 2005 “WA ‘first’ for community engagement”, Department for Planning and Infrastructure.

Anonymous (2006) Urban Design Forum Issue No. 74 “Poor urban design can contribute to obesity”.

Anonymous (2007) “Sydney pedestrians 2nd-class citizens” online

Bajracharya, Bhishna (2006) Urban Design Forum Issue No. 74 “Promoting transit-oriented development”.

Eads, Brian (2005) Australian Readers Digest “Taking Back Our Cities”.

Freestone, Robert (2007) Designing Australia’s cities: culture, commerce and the city beautiful 1900 - 1930, University of New South Wales Press Ltd. Everbest, China.

Hague, Cliff (2007) Australian Planner Volume 44 No. 1 3/2007, “Re-inventing Planning: challenges and skills”. Planning Institute of Australia.

Hall, Professor Sir Peter (2007) Australian Planner Volume 44 No. 1 3/2007, “Priorities for Australian cities”. Planning Institute of Australia.

www.idealcity.org.au

www.ideasthatmatter.com - related to Jane Jacobs

Landry, C (2006) The Art of City Making.London, Earthscan.

Latest community initiatives - www.dpi.wa.gov.au/dialogue

Liveable Neighbourhoods (2000), Western Australian Planning Commission, Perth, State of Western Australia.

www.livingneighbourhoods.org

Morris, Wendy (2006) Urban Design Forum Issue No. 76 “Perth Showcases New Urbanism”.

www.pedestrianfriendly.com

Planning Report Card (2006) Planning Institute of Australia (PIA)

www.planningwiki.org

Reinventing planning - www.globalplanningnetwork.org

www.walkableneighborhoods.com

www.walkscore.com

Whitzman, Dr Carolyn (2006) Australian Planner “Investing in the energy source of the future: Free range children”, Planning Institute of Australia.

Vizard, Steve (1998), “Two Weeks in Lilliput - Bear-baiting and backbiting at the Constitutional Convention”, Penguin Books Australia.