Former CEO, East Perth Redevelopment Authority

Introductory comments

I have always been taken by the quote of writer/poet Gertrude Stein, a long time ago about Oakland, California commenting that “there is no there there”.The phase was later used to characterise the vast urban sprawl of Southern California, particularly Los Angeles and its infamous freeway network. Even today it occasionally gets used to describe areas that are perceived to be bland or without character. The quote was in fact a misinterpretation in the Oakland context and, I believe, is a wrong attribution elsewhere- but for other reasons. The original Stein quote was apparently a lament on learning that her childhood home had been demolished and so it was more a statement about personal loss. I have also read a spirited postmodernist defence of Californian urban living from a cultural perspective and the changing relationships with place and situation. But I won’t go further into that. What is intriguing is that people relate to the sentiment whichever interpretation! And in the context of this evenings discussion that we recognise that the concept of place may be sometimes elusive, usually personal but always real.

This means that place- and place making or remaking- is a key consideration in any change to the urban fabric. Also, that even ordinary places deserve this recognition and attention not only the iconic public places and the centres and areas that are selectively earmarked.

Value

We have been asked tonight to focus on the value of place making in urban development particularly in relation to the renewal of our urban areas.

Well if the definition of place is challenging , the concept of value is more so. Economists, political scientists and everyman have argued about this for centuries. In the property industry there is a separate professional body of Valuers and Land Economists.

The conceptual threads are endless; Intrinsic worth, In-use value, Value-in-exchange, Survival value- the list goes on. And that’s before trying to fathom Melbourne house prices!

I won’t go into any of this debate except to say that even in practical terms value should not be defined narrowly. The development profit equation is critical: attendant with its concerns about capital appreciation, income growth and so on . But no less important in the consideration of value is such things as the legacy of new and refurbished community infrastructure, or the savings on infrastructure elsewhere through more efficient use of the investment at hand. Or intangible benefits like increased neighbourhood pride of place.

For the private developer-small and large- I have tried to think through the value issue from that legendary analytical perspective of “what’s in it for me”! How does more formalised place making create value?

For starters, and in commercial language, I would offer three comments :

Firstly, it creates broader investment opportunities

In areas of obsolete land uses or underutilisation there is often a tendency for new development to be more of the same type if there indeed isn’t an avoidance of investing altogether. Concerted placemaking can help lift horizons and communicate options of what else could be.

Next, it can reduce risk

If the planning, design and place management is for a shared vision going beyond the individual site, the investment in a particular development project -in fact all the investments, be they public or private – can be undertaken with greater confidence. Uncertainty is reduced by having a framework guiding and even binding the investment of all players.

This gives rise to a third value-add: leverage

More particularly the benefits that come from synergies: the whole being worth more than the sum of the parts. The interaction of the development parts and collaboration between parties can create additional value for the individual investor.

I appreciate that all of this is very high order commentary but my experience has been that where there is a strong sense of place and conscientious attempts at place making, overall development is more successful even if individual project are sometimes more contested.

Value creation

You might now ask what are the ingredients that makes a place valued- within the development or redevelopment context we have focused upon. Some quick reactions beyond the obvious issues of residential amenity and functionality:

• A heart (and for that matter a soul) to the neighbourhood or precinct. A tangible and symbolic centre that helps provide focus and differentiation from another place. A mixture of uses that includes employment and economic activity as well as retail.
• Good accessibility and connection both within the place and to other places. The handling of cars and car parking is probably the most challenging and critical element to address.
• An Authenticity. A recognition of the primacy of people and their relationships, accommodation of their needs and interactions; of the historical roots of a place and the elements of identity that need to be carried forward. This also means guarding against “cookie cutter” design and formulaic responses in a world of brands and franchises.

The density question always comes up. It is a huge discussion point. My short response is that there are no absolutes. There is a place for different building scales but they must not overwhelm and the key ingredients of placemaking must be present. I am certainly not suggesting any scale is suitable in any one place. More that diversity and choice must be provided across the broader urban area.

The next most important question is how to realise value. But perhaps given the shortage of time I will leave this for the discussion section.

Postscript on There

Let me finish with a postscript on my opening quote. In 2005 a large public art piece was installed at the Oakland municipal border. It comprised a sculpture of two giant words. Facing away was the word “There”. Facing in the other way, was the word “Here”. Whimsical ?, maybe, but very a potent and assertive message about place.

Thankyou