An analysis of Jan Gehl’s report ‘Sydney Public Space Public Life Recommendations’
Jan Gehl’s analysis identifies a range of conditions that present advantages and disadvantages for the future development of Sydney as a dynamic inclusive and liveable city. The recommendations in his report, however, seem to supplant onto our city a ready-made set of solutions implemented elsewhere, most notably the strategies employed in the city of Copenhagen. Is this the best solution for Sydney?
This analysis of ‘Sydney : Public Space Public Life Recommendations’ will consider the presumptions of Gehl’s analysis, methodological approach and the urban theory underpinning his recommendations. It will also pose the question, is this vision big enough? What is it that makes Sydney difficult and unique to cultivate as a future city? How can these specific conditions be the catalyst for imagining something else?
The City / The People
The first part of Jan Gehl’s report presents an analysis of Sydney’s physical attributes and conditions, then moves on to an investigation of the people that inhabit and use the city. Linked to these findings are observations related to patterns of behaviour and programmatic distribution within the city.
Underlying the anaylsis are a few key assumptions:
1. There exists a major problem. The city is choked with traffic and the public realm, by consequence, is weak.
2. The public realm is defined as being on the ground plane; experienced from the perspective of the pedestrian.
3. The city (aka ground plane) is uninviting for pedestrians.
4. The city does not connect adequately with it’s ‘natural’ attributes.
The ‘site’ of Gehl’s analysis is the City itself, defined as being bounded by Central Station in the south, Circular Quay in the north, Darling Harbour in the west and the Domain in the east.
Sydney’s natural physical features are highly valued – the harbour, vast parklands and undulating topography make Sydney a very ‘attractive’ and unique city on the world stage. Added to this are great achievements in the built environment such as the iconic Sydney Opera House and Harbour Bridge. The preservation of heritage buildings, the ‘coherent waterfront’ at Circular Quay and significant ‘pedestrian spaces’ such as Martin Place are listed as ‘major achievements’. Also deemed ‘good’ are a number of government initiatives such as design codes to unify city streets through street paving, signage, furniture and tree plantings and the masterplan for Barangaroo, the East Darling Harbour site.
However, Gehl concludes that Sydney has some ‘major problems’ too. All the result of bad urban planning and development. It is an ‘introverted city’ due to the significant roadways located at the city perimeter (Eastern Distributer, Western Distributer and the Cahill Expressway) leaving the city ‘cut-off’ from the Harbour. The inner city is dominated by traffic. Many city streets our identified as ‘service coridors’ for the free-way. It is a ‘mono-functional’ city. Four distinct ‘zones’ of program (defined as the culture district, business district, consumer district and fun district), prevent diversity and lead to busy periods and quiet periods across the city. One of the most significant problems Sydney faces is that it is a ‘high city’ with narrow streets (and footpaths). This leads to micro-climatic problems such as significant overshadowing of the ground plane and high winds. Large buildings diminish the laneway network and service corridors adding further stress to the congestion of the main streets. There is no street heirarchy. No coordinated cycling routes, open are disconnected, scattered across the city with very weak pedestrian connection.
Within this research Gehl makes many insightful observations. For instance he discusses how New York City’s unique ‘districts’ are based on spatial changes, defined by the architecture and density of occupation rather than on a change in programme, as is the case in Sydney. Districts in New York are ‘distinct’ but all maintain a healthy ‘mix’ of activity type. Another important observation is the ‘absence’ of particular user groups from the Sydney CBD. Conspicuously missing are the under 14 and over 65 age groups, along with those with accessibility difficulties. Student life is also largely absent with none of the universities or major educational institutions having a presence in the heart of the city (unlike RMIT in Melbourne for instance). Yet another key issue pertains to the ‘grain’ of the city. Gehl observes that large tower buildings often present inactive facades or large grain spaces at street level. A fine grain of street frontages (smaller spaces on the public realm), encourages more activity.
Gehl’s research is exhaustive and many of his observations about the ‘conditions’ that define the existing city of Sydney are highly valid. But what is interesting in his report is the way in which these ‘conditions’ have been framed. We are being ‘primed’ for a set of logical conclusions, and then responses, to these percieved attributes and problems. How then do we end up with the same strategic plan as Copenhagen?
Gehl’s Key Recommendations
Car-free Carefree – Noise and pollution generated from traffic are choking the city – driving it to breaking point. As Clover Moore puts it in the introduction to Gehl’s report, it is time to ‘rescue the pedestrians’. Cycling networks are to be developed as a viable alternative transport mode. Significant traffic management strategies aim to reduce through traffic, reduce traffic speeds, limit parking opportunities within the city and disconnect city streets from the freeways. The car is to be slowed down and squeezed out.
Connections to the Harbour (at all costs) – the Cahill Expressway and Western Distributer are identified for removal to permit the city to re-connect with the Harbour.
Reclaiming the ground plane – The life of the city is reinforced at ground level, underground and above ground activity is identified as a problem that detracts from the public realm, rather than an offering an alternative city space. The base of the ‘tower city’ is the site for action – reactivation of street frontages, the incorporation of ‘fine grain’ spaces and strongly connected pedestrian networks are championed.
Solving Main Street – creating identity – this strategy presents the logic for the development of new squares and becomes the ‘centre-piece’ of the urban remedy – A completely car-free space - A pedestrian street supported by a light rail network that is noise and fume free – the devlelopment of 3 major civic squares – Belmore Park, Town Hall and Circular Quay, add an identity and pace to the street.
Gehl’s ‘recommendations’ are a mix of significant urban changes and small scale initiatives. But do these plans run the risk of turning Sydney into a glamorous ‘show-piece’ that more closely resembles the controlled excitement of a ‘theme-park’ than the complex, messy and intense site of the city?
In the introduction to the ‘Sydney Public Space Public Life Recommendations’ Jan Gehl’s approach to urban planning is given a strong platform based upon his previous work in urban planning and his writings. His book from 1971 titled ‘Life Between Buildings’, is said to describe the ‘life that takes place in the spaces between buildings’ (p.8) His approach to reforming urban environments begins, with the ‘human dimension’ as a ‘starting point’. These statements create a powerful image, a human scale approach to urban planning. Yet they also offer up the potential of something else. What if the ‘spaces between buildings’ and the ‘human dimension’ were seperated from the site of the ‘ground plane’?
What if…
One of Sydney’s key conditions, and according to Gehl, major problems, is that it is a ‘vertical city’. A ‘high city’ that is exacerbated by narrow streets creating a plethora of problems including unpleasant micro-climatic conditions on the ground below. It adds to the alienation of the pedestrian on Sydney’s streets and is reinforced at the base of the tower by the lack of fine grain spaces.
Adding a fine grain to the city will help attract city life. It is afterall what has lead to the success of Melbourne’s inner city. The revitalisation of the laneways gives their city a space that works on the human scale. Combined with liquor licensing laws that accommodate small scale bars, coffee shops and restaurants that can move between operating in all three capacities over the course of a day, the shift in ‘scale’ has created the means for a strong alternative culture driven by students and young entreupeneurs who actively occupy the city. Melbourne has found a way to inject life and diversity into its streets.
So it seems natural for Sydney to look to Melbourne’s inner city redevelopment as a solution to its problems. But perhaps a direct transplant is not the best strategy. One Melbourne precedent that might be more appropriate as a catalyst is ‘Curtin House’ located on Swanston Street (main street), Curtin House is an inner city block experienced in the vertical plane. Over 6 or so floors are a maze of alternative clothing shops, book stores, bars, and even outdoor cinema. You can become lost in Curtin House for hours. It is a vertical laneway full of secret spaces to be discovered in the best Melbourne tradition.
