Chief Executive Officer, Fed Square, Melbourne

I am coming at the value of place from the public space perspective. It is clear that there is a growing body of evidence that getting public space right contributes directly to social capital but there is still a tendency to think of public space as ‘off-cuts’ of a public design or thoroughfare plan. After all, like much in our easy and commodified lives, we use it, we pass through it, and we take it for granted. It is appropriate to draw a link between access for citizens to public space, and the quality of democracy. The early Greek ‘polis” or city-state emphasised communal behaviour and as cities evolved designed public space for religious, secular and commercial activities became increasingly important (e.g. the agora). These spaces had multiple functions; citizens interacted and discussed issues pertaining to the city, aesthetic and pleasurable qualities were valued, commerce thrived, and informal and community activity space developed.

Indeed the privileges of “citizenship” were reflected in the public space-women, foreigners and slaves were not deemed to be citizens and their access to certain public spaces (the most “democratic”) was prohibited!

I think also is the age-old African world-view of Ubuntu is also conceptually really significant when it comes to public or communal space.

Ubuntu weaves together the humanity of each individual and is at the heart of human security. It relates to the existence of, compassion respect for, and sharing and living with, others. Ones identity as an individual and his/her existence and meaningfulness depends on the existence and survival of other individuals, and on human interdependence. Sharing with and caring for each other provides a social and traditional base for cohabitation and ensuring that the survival, livelihoods and dignity of those individuals and communities are respected.

We know that the world-wide trend is to larger cities, indeed to ‘mega-cities” where urban density will continue to increase, as will demands on infrastructure, services and the frameworks for social cohesion. The drivers and demands of economies are rapidly evolving. Existing cities, industrial in their genesis, now organize themselves around knowledge, experience, services, innovation and alternative economies. The trend is not new. For more than 40 years “western” cities have adapted strategies for “revitalization”. The international language of reborn cities has been informed by Richard Florida, Jan Gehl, Charles Landry and others.

Their argument is for economic and social viability through a human focus, responding to and reflecting the social, economic, ethical and emotional dynamic and spirit of a community. New urban environments and “creative” cities are not to be shaped by the jargon of planning or the historical patterns of architecture but rather by new questions:……“Does it involve you? Make you want to participate? Does it help you be curious, imaginative, creative, innovative and inventive?” 1

Environmental sustainability challenges have galvanized this work further. William McDonaugh in his groundbreaking “Cradle to Cradle” describes “a world which is safe, healthy, just, with clean air, soil and power….elegantly enjoyed” 2

It does seem that cities with increased building density, smaller living and working occupancy, services accessibility and good connectivity, can be sustainable. But to be liveable, a city needs to optimise our experience of well-being.

All these ideas have in common the goals and benefits of creating cities that are worth living in rather than accepting a future of glass and steel with pockets of social and economic dysfunction. It is a challenge that developing cities must be ready for.

But there is every risk that our public space gets reworked or developed with only the most superficial understanding of what “great public places” are about. Major cities have become enamoured with branded designers, some of whom who have created new spaces which are unfit for human activity and new buildings which stand alone and are emerging as untended, unusable and isolated. A narrow emphasis on design rather than a rounded appreciation of humanity and democracy has the potential to create dysfunctional future cities and communities.

Without spending time on what “optimises well being”. I’ll move to make some comments about Fed Square.

Federation Square is, both by design, management and surprise, Melbourne’s bridge from old city to new city. The basic mix of design, public and private use, managed in the context of its originating “Civic and Cultural Charter” has become a contemporary and technically savvy meeting point for the city’s experience economy, social diversity, creative brand and energy and the power of public expression.

Fed Square Pty Ltd has investigated a range of ideas about “place making” relevant to its comprehensive sustainable management i.e. the impact of existing and future design, how people relate to the spaces, strategies for evolution and development of the place and long term success factors. It is evolving a bespoke approach for integration into corporate planning, to secure ongoing place improvements in its management and the development of the precinct.

Critical in all this thinking is a focus on user needs. What the users might need from a built environment is most often considered in terms of the objects that they need to support the activities that they will undertake in any specific space. However, the experiential needs of these same users are often neglected and yet it is these which make the difference between a place that people like to be in and a place which has little impact on the quality of their lives. Experiential factors such as finding the way around feeling secure, not being too crowded but at the same time having enough people around to feel safe, all impact on liveability. Factors such as the feelings of delight and fascination, of being stimulated by the qualities of a place add another level by making the place something special.

Enjoyment is also critical to the long-term success of spaces. People will only return to a part of the city if they like the place; if they return, then the place is successful and so will add greatly to the perception of quality of life for the city as a whole. The human mind also enjoys complexity but not too much complexity.

William Whyte wrote that the social life in public spaces contributes to the quality of life of individuals and society, even, that there is a moral responsibility to create physical spaces that encourage civic engagement and community interaction.

Jan Gehl distinguishes between necessary/functional activities, optional/recreational activities and social activities in public spaces.3 While necessary activities take place regardless of the quality of the physical environment, optional activities depend to a significant degree on what the place has to offer and how it makes people behave and feel about it. And social activity is the fruit of this dynamic.

Adding another dimension, Charles Landry talks about the public life of cities and by association the places and people within them.4 It is important, he says, to create environments where people can think, plan, and act with imagination – where ordinary people can act in extraordinary ways if given the chance.

This means asking practitioners to act in slightly different ways from their established practice. He also asserts that creative places are not necessary comfortable places. People get involved, because you’re pushing at the boundaries; the new collides with the old, and that creative rub establishes a dynamic and tense equilibrium, a point at which things happen.

Adapting all these perspectives to our reality have led to key place-making emphases for Federation Square including:

• Enhancing accessibility
• Engagement in community and culture
• Being inviting, stimulating and contemporary
• Emphasising “a people place”.

Resulting actions are being integrated into Corporate Planning and Departmental Work plans and complementary performance indicators are being established to gauge success of ‘improvement interventions’. In the last two years a variety of these interventions have been integrated across all the areas of marketing, program, operations, works and business services.

This includes actions as diverse as:

• addressing challenges related to disability access and wayfinding
• creating a “minutes and metres to Fed Square” map developed with stakeholders
• entering into a memorandum of understanding with the state’s public transport marketers and providers
• leadership of a site-wide customer service excellence program to addressing shortcomings in shade and refinement of our “comfort zone” program,
• development of an interactive product called SMS Fed TV, allowing visitors to text the screen
• along with massive scale creative projects introducing the small “occupy” (art in unsual spaces) program
• emphasis on staying in touch with the sentiment of the community-to be available to host a protest, broadcast the receipt by a local company of a Tony Award or the National Apology to the Stolen Generation, mark the death of a loved community member or celebrate sporting success.
• many actions a oriented to making sure the precinct is safe, and clean,
• visitor satisfaction is measured and acted upon,
• deals have been done to provide free WiFi,
• a program of guides and ambassadors is in place,
• inappropriate seating is being replaced,
• more public toilets are planned

All designed to create and re-enforce the sense that the precinct works for people- it is the community’s meeting place.

Our learning is very much that without this perspective the precinct will languish in the public affection and the social and financial value of the investment will be lost.

And in closing can I quote Jane Jacobs….”street conversations are the small change from which a city’s public wealth may grow….”

Notes:

1. 1. Landry, Charles, The Creative City. Earthscan 2000
2. 2. McDonough, William and Braungart, Michael, Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. North Point Press 2002
3. 3. Gehl, Jan and Lars Gemzoe, Sia Kirknaes, Britt Sternhagen Sondergaard, New City Life. The Danish Architecture Press 2006
4. 4. Landry, Charles, The Creative City. Earthscan 2000