# **Greening the Greyfields** New Models for Regenerating the Middle Suburbs of Low-Density Cities

**Peter W. Newton Peter W.G. Newman Stephen Glackin Giles Thomson**

Greening the Greyfelds

Peter W. Newton • Peter W. G. Newman Stephen Glackin • Giles Thomson

# Greening the Greyfelds

New Models for Regenerating the Middle Suburbs of Low-Density Cities

Peter W. Newton Centre for Urban Transitions Swinburne University of Technology Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Stephen Glackin Centre for Urban Transitions Swinburne University of Technology Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Peter W. G. Newman Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute Curtin University Perth, WA, Australia

Giles Tomson Department of Strategic Sustainable Development Blekinge Institute of Technology Karlskrona, Sweden

ISBN 978-981-16-6237-9 ISBN 978-981-16-6238-6 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6238-6

© Te Editor(s) (if applicable) and Te Author(s) 2022. Tis book is an open access publication. **Open Access** Tis book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.

Te images or other third party material in this book are included in the book's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Te use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifc statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.

Te publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. Te publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional afliations.

Cover pattern © Melisa Hasan

Tis Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

Te registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

# **Preface**

*Greening the Greyfelds* integrates two strands of research pioneered by the senior authors of this book: ending automobile dependence and accelerating the supply of more-sustainable, medium-density infll housing in greyfeld suburbs at precinct scale. Te issues that drive this collaboration are the patterns of disconnected land use and transport development and the dysfunctional model for urban regeneration in the middle suburbs that continue to characterise the rapid growth of twenty-frst-century Australian cities (as well as their international counterparts).

*Greyfelds* are the geographic focus of the new planning models outlined in this book: the ageing, occupied residential tracts of suburbs that are physically, technologically, and environmentally obsolescent and that represent economically outdated, failing, or under-capitalised real-estate assets. Tey are typically located in the low-density, car-dependent middle suburbs of cities developed in the mid- to late twentieth century. Tey are rich in services, amenities, and employment, compared to the outer and peri-urban suburbs, and are becoming the focus of signifcant but suboptimal suburban re-urbanisation pressures. Despite these pressures, there is a lack of appropriate planning models for urban regeneration.

*Urban regeneration* is required to shrink the unsustainable urban and ecological footprints of 'suburban' cities as well as deliver environments that are more resilient, liveable, and equitable for future city populations. In light of COVID-19, urban regeneration also needs to be aligned to a restructuring of the work–residence relationship of cities, re-localising urban places and increasing their self-sufciency as '20-minute neighbourhoods'. Tis presents a grand challenge for the twenty-frst century.

*Precincts* emerge as the most appropriate scale for tackling urban regeneration. Tey are the building blocks of cities: the scale at which greenfelds continue to be developed; and the scale at which brownfelds are being redeveloped. At present, however, there is a defcit in precinct-level planning models appropriate for sustainable urban development in the greyfelds. *Greyfeld precinct regeneration* (GPR) represents that missing class of planning model. In this book, we outline the genesis of the concept and its two sub-models—place-activated and transit-activated GPR—and the broader framework for their targeting and implementation, which involves a new concept and process: district greenlining. Tis strategic process enables state and municipal agencies to identify the boundaries of larger districts where retroftting plans and timetables for next-generation physical (energy, water, waste, and transport) and social (health and educational) infrastructures, as well as nature-based services, are developed in an integrated manner, providing the spatial context for better identifying and specifying place-activated and transit-activated GPR projects.

Assembling larger land parcels for precinct-scale renewal is one of the components in establishing a pathway towards realising the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 11 of 'inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable' urban development—a critical objective of GPR. GPR requires demonstration of additionality: the multiple benefts that refect more comprehensive, design-led, integrated land use and transport approaches to planning, compared to business-as-usual fragmented, small-lot infll.

Given the increasingly pervasive and pressing nature of the greyfeld regeneration challenge, all levels of government need to become engaged in developing a strategic response. Establishing Greyfeld Precinct Regeneration Authorities in major cities, involving partnerships with all major urban stakeholder groups and led by the national government in a *Better Cities 2.0* programme, would represent an important catalyst for driving urban regeneration in the greyfelds.

Tis programme of applied research has been built on multiple competitive funding grants received since 2010: the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI), the Cooperative Research Centre for Spatial Information (CRCSI), the Australian Urban Research Infrastructure Network (AURIN), the Cooperative Research Centre for Low Carbon Living (CRCLCL), the Sustainable Built Environment National Research Centre (SBEnrc), the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, and the Australian Government's Smart Cities and Suburbs Program. Equally important have been signifcant collaborative partnerships with the Government of Victoria and the City of Maroondah; the Government of Western Australia and the cities of Fremantle, Canning, Perth, and Stirling; and in New South Wales the cities of Blacktown and Liverpool.

We would also like to acknowledge the contributions made by the next generation of urban researchers who have been part of the greyfelds research team and who are co-authors of this book: Dr Stephen Glackin and Dr Giles Tomson.

> Peter W. Newton Peter W. G. Newman

# **Contents**


**x Contents**


# **About the Authors**

**Peter W. Newton** is a Research Professor in Sustainable Urbanism at Swinburne University of Technology's Centre for Urban Transitions, Melbourne. His research and publishing focuses on new planning technologies, future systems of urban settlement, the development dynamics of cities, and urban sustainability transition processes. He is author/editor of over 20 books on these topics. He has held senior leadership positions in seven National Research Centres related to urban systems innovation. Prior to joining Swinburne he was Chief Research Scientist at the Commonwealth Scientifc and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO).

**Peter W. G. Newman** is the John Curtin Distinguished Professor of Sustainability at Curtin University, Perth. Peter has written 20 books and over 350 papers on sustainable cities and has worked to deliver his ideas at all levels of government. He is the Coordinating Lead Author for the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Transport. In 2014, he was awarded an Order of Australia for his contributions to urban design and sustainable transport. In 2018/19 he was the Western Australia Scientist of the Year.

**Stephen Glackin** is Senior Research Fellow at Swinburne University's Centre for Urban Transitions in Melbourne. His research focuses on various aspects of urban analysis, including the built and natural environments, spatial distribution, and the social, fnancial, and legal processes that enable the sustainable functioning and ongoing evolution of cities.

**Giles Tomson** is a Lecturer in the Department of Strategic Sustainable Development in Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden. He researches urban sustainability transitions. A practitioner prior to academia, he worked as an urban planner in Australia, the UK, the USA, the Middle East, and China before completing a PhD titled 'Transitioning to regenerative cities' at Curtin University. He is grateful to the Knowledge Foundation (KK-stiftelsen) in Sweden for fnancial support.

# **Abbreviations**


#### **xiv Abbreviations**

VAMPIRE Vulnerability Assessment for Mortgage, Petroleum and Infation Risks and Expenses WGV White Gum Valley WSUD Water-sensitive urban design YIMBY Yes, in my backyard

# **List of Figures**




# **List of Tables**



# **List of Boxes**


# **1**

# **The Global Greyfelds Transition: Why Urban Redevelopment in Low-Density, Car-Based Middle Suburbs Needs a New Model**

# **1 Introduction**

Tis book introduces greyfeld precinct regeneration (GPR), a set of new urban-planning models capable of regenerative medium-density redevelopment in ageing, established, well-located, low-density middle-ring suburbs of large, fast-growing cities that are primarily residential: the greyfelds (Box 1.1). Greyfelds are areas where the value of built assets now lies primarily in the land rather than in the ageing buildings. Te attraction of the middle suburbs is that they are generally well served with local services, facilities, and community groups built over several decades. However, they lack sufcient new housing supply to meet the demand for well-located, diverse, twenty-frst-century housing, especially in large, fast-growing cities.

Tere are two categories of GPR models: place-activated and transit-activated.

1. *Place-activated GPR* targets residential precincts in the middle suburbs with high redevelopment potential due to their attractive locational

#### **2 P. W. Newton et al.**

values such as proximity to schools, health services, and parks, but in need of reactivation to meet twenty-frst-century needs. Tey need housing *and* neighbourhood regeneration with new eco-infrastructures for energy, water, waste, transit, and communications, all providing better services with a reduced ecological footprint, but require higher densities and more variety of dwelling types and sizes for the market to work. Tey are the 'missing middle' of urban renewal: medium density at precinct scale.

2. *Transit-activated GPR* injects new transit along corridors that enable GPR precincts to be created like pearls along a string of tram or major road corridors, together with activated personal mobility systems. Tis kind of GPR ofers similar place-based attractions, but its biggest value lies in its potential to be part of a much more accessible transit service for destinations across the car-dependent greyfelds and their centres of urban activity, as well as having local micro-mobility (electric bikes, scooters, skateboards, and shuttles) providing networks and services that link station precincts to their catchments. Tis model is developed in the book around new forms of mid-tier transit, especially trackless trams, capable of initiating a transition from primarily car-dependent suburbs.

In combination, these two *models* provide transition pathways to more sustainable, liveable, and regenerative twenty-frst-century urban development.

Middle suburbs are the focus of the book, as urban regeneration of central and inner areas (particularly in CBDs and brownfelds) has been more advanced over the past 25 years in Australian and North American cities after decades of inner-city decline (Box 1.1). However, this growth has not been able to move into middle suburbs in either Australia or North America due largely to zoning and land-assembly issues. Innerarea regeneration has been able to successfully focus on large precincts that consisted of abandoned industrial or warehousing districts or outmoded commercial buildings, often with single property owners, making it easier for developers to create precinct-scale projects. Meanwhile, outer suburbs have continued to grow as low-density, car-dependent, precinctscale greenfeld developments, based on large blocks of subdivided rural land. Attempts to increase supply of new housing in the middle suburbs using precinct-scale 'growth' zoning of activity centres and major transport corridors have not proven to be sufcient magnets for residential property developers, as these suburbs have a myriad of individual property owners, making precinct-scale developments very difcult. Te only model so far demonstrated to attract signifcant housing redevelopment in these greyfeld areas is subdivision of single lots into micro-lots that have a ready market but do not provide the additional benefts and common-good outcomes due to their small scale (outlined in Box 1.1 and in detail in this book). Terefore, the new GPR model in both placeactivated and transit-activated forms is based on multiple contiguous lots being assembled into a larger-scale set of opportunities for urban precinct regeneration.

Te book will articulate the key *planning and design* features of these models and why they enable many more common-good outcomes (additionality). A major focus is also on how to deliver the GPR. A signifcant body of work by architects in recent years has demonstrated what the market should be supplying in such areas—but primarily at building, rather than precinct, scale (as refected in the 'missing middle' housingdesign competitions recently held in Queensland, NSW, and Victoria). But apart from 'knock-down-rebuild', there has not been a model able to articulate the *planning processes* necessary for higher-yield regenerative redevelopment in greyfelds. Such planning necessitates involvement of multiple stakeholders from government, local communities, and builtenvironment industries developing a common goal and vision for precinct-scale urban regeneration.

GPR models are of particular relevance to the low-density middle suburbs characteristic of Australian cities, where the underpinning research for this book was based. Tey are equally applicable to cities in the USA, Canada, New Zealand, and parts of Europe that share common urban geographies and urban development challenges (Loader, 2015).

#### **Box 1.1 The Three Arenas of Urban Development: Greenfelds, Brownfelds, and Greyfelds**

There are three arenas for urban planning and development in twenty-firstcentury cities: greenfields, brownfields, and greyfields (Newton, 2010). *Greenfields* have been the traditional focus for city growth, with low-density urban development occurring on previously zoned rural-agricultural land on the fringe of existing built-up areas. Compact city strategies have attempted to redirect investment, development, and population inwards and upwards to urban infill, rather than outwards, in an attempt to halt urban sprawl. Infill here refers to the process of redeveloping existing ageing built properties, usually at a higher density/yield and sometimes different use. Infill can occur on both brownfield and greyfield sites, but the development models and processes (involving planning, urban design, finance, construction, and community engagement), and the built-environment outcomes resulting from each, are distinctly different (Newton & Glackin, 2014).

*Brownfield* redevelopment has emerged as a process for re-imagining and transitioning those parts of cities that have 'outlived' their original industrial-era functions. Principal among these are the abandoned or under-used docklands that now occupy prime waterfront sites in all coastal cities, as well as the thousands of industrial-era manufacturing sites in large metropolitan areas. They can be distinguished from greyfield development sites in several key respects: they are typically owned by a single party, usually government or industry; they are of a scale closer to that provided by greenfield sites for development; they are contaminated to some degree, depending on the previous use; and they are usually unoccupied, obviating the need for community engagement at a level required of greyfields. As such, brownfield sites have been attractive to both governments and the property development and finance industries that have been able to create a development model to undertake such projects (Newton & Thomson, 2017).

*Greyfields* redevelopment has proven to be more challenging. 'Greyfields' is a term used to describe the extensive band of ageing, occupied, residential tracts of inner and middle suburbs that are physically, technologically, and environmentally obsolescent, and which represent economically outdated, failing, or under-capitalised real-estate assets. They typically occur in a 5–25 km radius from the centre of large cities and are rich in services, transport, amenities, and employment compared to the outer and peri-urban (greenfield) suburbs (Newton, 2010). This is the reason they have become a key target for more intensive redevelopment by government planning agencies in their future metro strategies. Current planning strategies are failing to deliver the scale and quality of urban infill in the greyfields, however. Small-scale, piecemeal, fragmented, suboptimal small-lot subdivision is spreading like a virus through greyfield suburbs with high redevelopment potential, removing up to 50% of private green space and blocking prospects for better designed, regenerative, precinct-scale, medium-density 'missing middle' redevelopment (Newton et al., 2020; Newman & Kenworthy, 2015). Developing new models and processes for precinct-scale regeneration in greyfields has been the catalyst for the research behind this book, guided by urban transition theory, concepts, and processes.

#### **1 The Global Greyfelds Transition: Why Urban Redevelopment…**

GPR (both place-activated and transit-activated) represents niche innovation capable of being incorporated into current metropolitan planning strategies and instruments designed to deliver more *compact, full-service districts* (i.e., with the accessibility and amenities of most inner urban areas) by focusing on *urban infll* rather than greenfeld development. Greenfeld-based planning strategies are currently proving difcult to implement in a sustainable way because infrastructure and service provision in low-density environments is expensive, and these areas are typically lacking in employment opportunities and thus depend heavily on car-based commutes. GPR ofers a better solution for remaking twentyfrst-century cities, as it can provide more *integrated land use and transport planning* capable of delivering critical environmental, economic, and social outcomes that respond to a common set of national performance goals for cities: sustainable, liveable, inclusive, resilient, and productive. Transit-activated GPR can integrate land redevelopment with a focus on new transit along main roads and provide links into surrounding areas through 'last mile' local micro-mobility services. Place-activated GPR targets neighbourhoods with high redevelopment potential that integrate high-quality local micro-mobility infrastructures as well as longer services to reach the nearest major transit service. Both GPR models share the need for new planning approaches, with place-activated GPR not likely to attract as much density as in the precincts surrounding transit-activated GPR stations along a whole regenerated corridor.

Such reduced car dependence and increased residential density and land-use mix can often be seen as disruptive to the status quo of many afected residential communities and can thus face resistance in the absence of a clearly demonstrated ability of a GPR project to deliver community additionality. Much of the greyfelds redevelopment to date has generated more housing and car trafc in the middle suburbs without any environmental or local amenity benefts: a reason why local residents adopt a NIMBY ('not in my backyard') stance. In this context, our use of the term 'additionality' refers to those attributes of neighbourhood regenerative redevelopment that need to accompany medium-density redevelopment; for example, zero-carbon energy, water-sensitive design and integrated water systems, improved mobility, social infrastructure, and enhanced green space—delivering multiple, measurable benefts to the local community. Tus, the additionality of GPR is designed to achieve much more than business-as-usual redevelopment. Tis book emphasises the new planning, design, and engagement processes required to demonstrate how these additionality benefts can become upfront requirements in GPR.

Tis chapter and those that follow provide a roadmap for reducing risk as well as promoting the benefts of GPR interventions. Tey address the multiple and well-established challenges facing large, fast-growing cities:


Te next section sets out the 10 core transitions that will be addressed in this book and how they will be explored. Each examines the multiple innovation arenas in which change needs to happen to deliver moresustainable urban development in the twenty-frst century.

# **2 The 10 Transitions in Greening the Greyfelds**

City development patterns have evolved over time in response to radically diferent transport and building technologies, changing locational workplace-residence requirements during diferent industrial and economic eras, and the city development strategies of infuential regimes comprising metropolitan governments and the property industry. A critical transition challenge that now arises is overcoming the inertia and tensions associated with the infexible nature of many features of the current built environments to achieve a common set of goals for twentyfrst-century cities: sustainable, liveable, inclusive, resilient, and productive. Te following sections briefy outline these features and their shortcomings, identify what needs to change, and describe how they will be covered in the book. Te frst fve transitions are related to current built-environment and planning systems and how they vary over time and across cities. Te second fve concern sustainable urban development transitions and the case for more-compact cities and precinct-scale interventions in greyfelds.

#### **2.1 Transition 1: Urban Fabrics**

Urban fabric is a shorthand term for the physical built environment patterns that have resulted from diferent underlying transport infrastructures supporting average journey-to-work travel times of approximately 30 minutes (the 'Marchetti anthropological constant') from agricultural eras to the present. Te Teory of Urban Fabrics (Newman et al., 2016) reveals three dominant city types from history: walking cities, transit cities, and automobile cities. Most cities today have a mixture of all three urban fabrics (Fig. 1.1).

*Walking cities* are dense, mixed-use areas of generally more than 100 persons per hectare. Te oldest urban typology, it dominated until the 1850s. Many modern cities are built around a nucleus of an older walking city, but they struggle to retain the walking urban fabric due to the competing automobile-city fabric that now overlies it. Reacting to this competition, many modern cities are now attempting to reclaim the dense, fne-grained street patterns associated with walkability.

*Transit cities* are extensions of the old walking city made possible by the introduction of trains and, later, trams between 1850 and 1950. Trams and trains supported corridor development with typical densities between 35 and 100 persons per hectare, with higher-density walking fabric around transit stops. Te increased speed of transit allowed urban development to extend 20 km or more from the city centre.

**8**

**Fig. 1.1** Automobile city, transit city, and walking city—a mix of three city fabrics. (Source: Newman & Kenworthy, 2015)

*Automobile cities* emerged from the 1950s onwards with the advent of mass automobile production. Once there was individualised motor transport, city growth was no longer constrained to fxed rail corridors. In these new kinds of cities, population densities fell to less than 35 persons per hectare (low-density sprawl) because the fexibility and speed of cars (average 50–80 km/h on uncongested roads) allowed residents to live well beyond a 20 km radius from the city centre. Te term 'automobile dependence' was developed in the 1980s to express how cities were increasingly being built around the car, leading to a multitude of issues that are now getting beyond the control of most planning systems (Newman & Kenworthy, 1989).

A fundamental problem with mid- to late-twentieth-century town planning has been the belief that there is only one type of city—the automobile city—and town planning regulations have been formulated to deliver that. Tis is notwithstanding the fact that the negative aspects of designing cities predominantly for automobile use have become increasingly apparent and have constituted a failure of urban policy and planning. Tis book addresses that fundamental issue by suggesting the need for a specifc and place-based focus on a new kind of fabric in the middle suburbs.

A forced transition to telecommuting during COVID-19 has raised questions about the prospects of a shift in regime from the daily work commute to one that is more fexible and weekly for many, thereby challenging Marchetti's long-operating anthropocentric travel-time constant (linked to an average 30-minute travel-time budget) that has shaped transport–land use relationships and changes over centuries. Te importance of each fabric is more than likely going to continue, with face-toface urbanity supported by electronic interactions (Florida, 2017). But the need for re-localisation around new centres or precincts is bound to be a new focus for many reasons (Fig. 1.1).

*Transition 1* Retroft automobile-dependent suburbs with walkingcity and transit-city transport infrastructures at higher levels of residential redevelopment (a focus of Chap. 4).

#### **2.2 Transition 2: Building Typologies**

Te urban landscape of large cities reveals three building forms or typologies: high rise, medium density, and detached low density. Each represents diferent urban qualities and can equally accommodate the requirements for a particular urban form and level of urban density at a precinct scale, depending on spacing and type of building (UrbiumEtOrbi, 2015). For low-density 'suburban' cities, detached housing has represented the dominant mode for accommodating resident populations, and continues to do so for many countries such as Australia, although the percentage share is slowly declining in the capital cities (e.g., in 2016,

**Fig. 1.2** Dwelling approvals 2002–2020 for Australia's major capital cities. (Source: Adapted from Newton et al., 2017)

66% separate houses, 21% medium density, and 13% high-rise apartments; .id, 2018). A suburban-to-urban transition will require the strategic injection of more medium-density and high-rise buildings in established low-density suburban settings where detached housing constituted the original building form from the 1940s on. As discussed in subsequent sections, this will require new models for land assembly and redevelopment in greyfeld suburbs.

Te pattern of medium-density approvals in Australia's four largest cities (Fig. 1.2) refects the barriers that this class of development has faced to date in achieving greater take-up: slow recognition by industry of underlying population demand (a focus for Chap. 6); poor urban-design responses, and restrictive government residential zoning policies (a focus in Chap. 7). In the two largest cities with the least-afordable housing, apartment construction has boomed. A comparative analysis of built forms and densities of Australia's three largest cities with Vancouver, Montreal, and London (Spencer et al., 2015) reveals two contrasting patterns of density distribution (Fig. 1.3). Te frst urban pattern features extensive areas of low (<50 pph) residential suburban densities with a

**Fig. 1.3** City built-form and density models. (Source: Spencer et al., 2015)

relatively small number of concentrated areas zoned for high-density building (>400 pph)—CBD, major mixed-use activity centres, and transit nodes: efectively the current Australian model. As Woodcock et al. (2010, p. 104) have noted, 'the market has become polarised into fringe suburbs and inner-city towers and there has been a lack of market incentive to innovate at medium density in established suburbs'. The second urban development pattern features a more even distribution of mid-range densities that ofers the potential for implementing more cost-effective transit-oriented development versus car-dependent sprawl. Achieving this urban landscape in Australian cities will require redevelopment of established greyfeld low-density suburbs capable of

**Fig. 1.4** Alternative building typologies and densities for a precinct of common dimensions

transitioning from a model that facilitates suboptimal small-lot subdivision to precinct-scale regeneration involving lot consolidation—a principal focus of this book (Fig. 1.4).

Te greatest beneft that urban lot consolidation provides is the enhanced potential for integrated design responses on larger lots compared to the spatial constraints of small lots. Larger assembled parcels of land unlock the potential for transformative urban-design responses. By thinking beyond small individual lots, a step change in reshaping the urban fabric becomes possible; for example, to increase density from individual dwellings on fenced blocks to higher density outcomes with sufcient space to allow for the requisite site arrangement to integrate other aspects that can enhance liveability and sustainability; these can include on-plot open space, building setback for privacy, and retention of existing site features such as trees. Tese liveability and sustainability benefts will be most successfully achieved through a context-dependent, design-led approach whereby a development proposal is based on meeting pre-established quality criteria, such as urban-precinct design principles.

Current planning practice in most urban areas looks to increase density through blanket up-zoning for small-lot subdivision infll. However, this type of redevelopment emphasises site yield over site design quality. Not all density is equal. A development that seeks only site yield will increase overall foor area (and population), but does not necessarily improve urban liveability or sustainability; in other words, additionality—additional benefts for residents and the city collectively. In practice, most blanket up-zoning brings about a reduction in the urban amenity and liveability of an area due to increased car trafc, more noise generation, reduced privacy, loss of greenery, and increased hard surfaces. Such decreases in urban quality can drive NIMBY responses. However, through good design, it becomes possible to address each of these potential issues, to deliver increased urban population density as well as additionality. Good-quality design creates a market 'pull' for more of the same—that is, a well-designed GPR product—whereas poor design outcomes in the form of suboptimal infll that results from blunt policy instruments (such as blanket up-zoning) elicits community resistance. Te place-activated GPR process developed for *Greening the Greyfelds* required that additionality become a core concept as well as a demonstrable outcome from any precinct-regeneration project as a necessary condition for changing a NIMBYresponse from residents and local governments in the middle suburbs to YIMBY ('yes, in my back yard') (Fig. 1.5).

**Fig. 1.5** The concept of additionality. (Source: Newton et al., 2020)

*Transition 2* Increase provision for strategically planned and designed high- or medium-density housing in established greyfeld suburbs, employing innovative place-activated and transit-activated GPR models for high-liveability outcomes that balance development footprint with green space, in contrast to small-lot subdivisions with suboptimal outcomes (a focus of Chaps. 2, 4, 5, and 7).

#### **2.3 Transition 3: The Evolving Spatial Patterns of Urban Industrial Cycles**

Most Western countries are now in a post-industrial era of urban development that has witnessed several radical transitions over a relatively short period of time in modern history:


inner-city suburbs as traditional heavy-manufacturing industries began to shift to low-cost regions (often of-shore), creating brownfeld sites and 'donut cities', until forces of gentrifcation and redevelopment linked to a new demographic and a wave of new information industries and workers began to reverse the trend (Brotchie et al., 1987; Newton, 1995) (Fig. 1.6).

• In the twenty-frst century, the pendulum has swung from suburbanisation to re-urbanisation, creating pressures on the *established areas* of cities (CBDs and their surrounding inner and middle suburbs) to accommodate new populations, knowledge-economy industries, and housing. Tey are the favoured locations for the new growth industries: creative, information, and knowledge-based businesses that require face-to-face interactions. Tey are also favoured locations for their workforces, creating agglomeration economies that are the engines of contemporary economic development world-wide. Tey also tend to represent the high residential amenity neighbourhoods in walking and transit areas of cities in developed economies, with superior access to higher education and health services, interactive spaces such as cofee shops, public transport, and jobs. High liveability and employment factors combine to make such urban centres highly attractive for both local populations and overseas-educated, migrant populations, and contribute to sustained levels of population growth

**Fig. 1.6** Inner Melbourne—average annual population change revealing eras of depopulation (refecting early suburbanisation) and repopulation (re-urbanisation). (Source: Victorian Department of Energy Land Water and Planning based on data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics)

and pressure on city governments where a planning and development defcit is now evident. Te fact that restrictive zoning schemes 'lock up' most existing greyfeld suburbs from higher-density redevelopment means that greenfeld development and suburban sprawl, with their associated negative externalities, continue to be a feature of Australian cities.

*Transition 3* Design a metropolitan plan for more-compact cities comprising networks of '20 minute neighbourhoods' connected by transit-activated corridors that connect more full-service districts in an information-based telematic era that can now deliver more sustainable urban development (a focus of Chaps. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7).

## **2.4 Transition 4: Housing Life Cycles and Residential Redevelopment**

Achieving the compact city via suburban re-urbanisation will depend upon both a signifcant increase in the supply of redevelopable land in brownfelds and greyfelds and the way they are retroftted. Brownfeld sites are more readily identifable and redevelopable at precinct scale. More challenging is assessing residential redevelopment potential in greyfelds. A frst-level analysis in what is a multi-criteria exercise involves calculating a residential redevelopment potential index (RPI) that indicates the proportion of a property's value attributable to the land as distinct from the built asset (RPI = land value/total property value; where an index value of 1.0 indicates that all value is in the land). As Fig. 1.7 shows, using municipal rating data for each property across a city reveals a clear housing life cycle for each district (suburb or local government area), ranging from youthful (in outer suburbs with a concentration of new residential subdivisions), to maturing (the middle suburbs) to regenerating (where a signifcant level of new infll housing development is occurring as remaining stock continues to decline physically, technologically, and environmentally).

**Fig. 1.7** Stages in the housing life cycle across a metropolitan area. Type of municipality: (**a**) regenerating; (**b**) advanced ageing; (**c**) ageing; (**d**) maturing; (**e**) youthful; (**f**) model of stages across a municipality's housing life cycle. (Source: Newton et al., 2011)

A metropolitan-wide assessment of residential redevelopment potential undertaken for Melbourne in 2016 using ENVISION software (Glackin, 2013) revealed that over one-third of the city's 32 municipalities had more than half their housing stock with high redevelopment potential (Fig. 1.8). Tis represents approximately 1.82 million individual residential properties with an RPI index >0.7 across the city (23% >0.8 and 9% >0.9). Research indicates that when properties with an RPI >0.7 come onto the market, they are typically redeveloped within six years, which is signifcantly more quickly than those with a lower RPI (Newton, 2010).

Fragmented lot-by-lot redevelopment encouraged under current metropolitan residential planning schemes results in knock-down-rebuild and small-lot low-density subdivision—with adverse impacts on the sustainable development of cities. Figure 1.9 illustrates the virus-like spread of piecemeal residential redevelopment in a typical middle-ring Melbourne suburb over a decade. Tis is progressively inhibiting the potential for higher-yield regenerative urban redevelopment at precinct scale while at the same time destroying urban green space.

**Fig. 1.8** Residential redevelopment potential of properties across Melbourne municipalities, 2016. (Source: Derived by authors from Victorian Valuer General 2016 rates data set)

**Fig. 1.9** The virus-like process of fragmented infll redevelopment in the City of Maroondah, Melbourne, 2006–2016. (Source: Newton et al., 2020)

*Transition 4* Implement a planning and land-assembly scheme that supports planning of greyfelds regenerative residential redevelopment that is more agile and forward-looking and enables precinct-scale medium-density projects yielding more housing, more sustainably, by incentivising lot consolidation among neighbouring property owners or by requiring minimum lot sizes for infll redevelopment (voluntary lot consolidation is a focus of Chap. 7).

#### **2.5 Transition 5: Changing Household Structures and Composition**

Several signifcant demographic shifts are underway in the twenty-frst century that are beginning to reshape urban housing markets. Principal among these is the maturation of the large 'baby boomer' generation (those born between 1946 and 1964). Tey are beginning to make an impact as many downsize from their under-occupied (and owneroccupied) housing (Newton et al., 2011; James et al., 2020) and look for appropriate dwellings and locations to occupy in retirement. Te most sought-after neighbourhoods are typically those located close to where many currently live: in the established suburbs. Smaller medium-density units best suited to empty nesters are in short supply in these areas, however, and new stock for this type of housing is priced closer to that of older greyfeld detached housing, which leaves smaller proft to add to retirement savings, and less incentive to move. Tis is unless neighbours in this age bracket combine their properties to sell as a consolidated precinct for redevelopment. In this case, evidence suggests that they will reap a higher dividend than if the properties are sold separately.

A real estate 'package' for medium-density dwellings in a well-located middle-ring suburb is also well suited to meeting the needs of several other household types. Single-person households, couples without children, and single parents are projected to increase at about twice the rate of the nuclear family (couples with children); thus, housing production in Australia and other countries with low-density suburban cities needs to dramatically increase housing that fts these needs (McGee, 2016). Appropriate confgurations of twenty-frst-century housing need to be incorporated in GPR to enable people to live near the services and functions they are used to.

*Transition 5* Support a property-development industry capable of matching demand from an increasing diversity of household types and life-cycle stages with supply of more dwelling types that enable people to live longer in their desired locality (a focus of Chaps. 3, 5, 6, and 7).

### **2.6 Transition 6: Overcoming Multiple Problems of Sprawl and Regenerating Car-Dependent Suburbs**

Te pattern and rate of development characterising contemporary fastgrowing cities is increasing the urgency of identifying transition pathways capable of reshaping cities to be more productive, sustainable, liveable, inclusive, and resilient (the set of performance goals established by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG, 2011) for Australian cities and made global through the UN's New Urban Agenda). A principal planning intervention that is aligned with all these transition goals is halting urban sprawl by accommodating growth in a more sustainable and equitable manner through re-urbanising the ageing, established, lowdensity, car-dependent greyfeld suburbs.

An extensive literature on this topic links sprawl with:


#### **1 The Global Greyfelds Transition: Why Urban Redevelopment…**

**Fig. 1.10** The liveability–sustainability nexus of cities. (Source: Drawn from data published in Newton, 2012)

their footprints while retaining their high levels of liveability—something that many European cities have demonstrated is feasible, as refected in smaller, less consumptive housing and low-carbon walking and transit fabrics (Newman et al., 2017).


COVID-19 has raised a number of questions associated with envisioning the future city and suburb, especially in relation to telework, commuting, and a changing relationship between home and workplace. Te pandemic has reinforced the importance of local accessibility and local amenities (shops, services, recreation, parks): i.e. the 20-minute neighbourhood. During 2020, it became clear that many aspects of contemporary cities and built environments are no longer ft for purpose and are not being positioned for the century ahead. Key urban transitions will need to involve decarbonisation of the built environment, nature-based urbanism linked to integrated, decentralised urban water systems in

**Fig. 1.11** The transition to regenerative cities. (Source: Newman et al., 2017, p. 13)

warming cities with declining rainfall, a circular urban economy, smart distributed urban infrastructures, and new forms of urban governance. All these are drivers of the new precinct-based housing and mobility models that feature in the following chapters, especially in regard to how they contribute to a new era and landscape of *regenerative urbanism* (Fig. 1.11).

Tis transition pathway seeks to close the door on a model of city development that has been demonstrably exploitative by putting economic objectives ahead of social and environmental concerns. An 'ecoefciency' framework has emerged over recent decades, which represents an attempt to assess both the positive and negative environmental impacts associated with development projects, with a view to incorporating the results in urban decision-making processes. It recognises that environmental as well as economic calculations need to be involved in builtenvironment decision-making. Te objective is to reduce environmental impact subject to cost, but the primacy of economic performance is typically evident—to some extent due to challenges associated with measuring the positive economic values of urban ecosystem services as well as the negative externalities linked to business-as-usual types of urban development, and incorporating both in the development project's spreadsheet. An inhibiting factor here is that contemporary governments are typically ill-disposed toward regulation requiring the additional measurement inherent in triple bottom-line project assessment; instead, they tend to favour industry-supported voluntary (often check-box) schemes for performance assessment.

'Regenerative urbanism' has emerged as a new objective for urban development that presents the opportunity and challenge to go beyond minimal reductions in environmental impact to a new vision of how cities can be designed and operate in an 'eco-positive' manner, while maintaining or enhancing liveability (Birkeland, 2008; Tomson & Newman, 2016, 2018, 2020); in other words, removing negative environmental impacts from development and providing ecological gain. Tis requires regenerative development that is based on 'giving back as well as taking' (Girardet, 2015, p. 11) and needs to operate across all urban sectors and all urban scales: buildings, precincts, and cities. Regenerative urbanism relies heavily on the use of the urban metabolism model framework for representing (and measuring) the fow of resources into and waste outputs from built environments. It highlights the transformational changes that need to occur in urban systems (after Tomson & Newman, 2016, 2018, 2020; Tomson et al., 2016):


domestic waste streams linked to a transition to a circular economy based on industrial-ecology principles.


afordable. Tere would also be an increased ability to cope with shocks linked to volatile global fnancial markets and health pandemics.

*Transition 6* Devise regenerative metropolitan development strategies and new planning and development models such as GPR to enable transformative change at building, precinct, and city levels that is capable of halting further urban sprawl and helping create sustainable, resilient, inclusive, afordable city development (a focus of Chaps. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7).

### **2.7 Transition 7: Aligning Metropolitan Planning Strategies with Urban Redevelopment Needs**

Urban redevelopment currently occurs in two contrasting urban arenas: brownfelds and greyfelds. Tey can be distinguished by the planning, zoning, and development processes involved and the scale and dwelling yield of the on-ground projects. To date, greyfeld residential infll redevelopment has been occurring in three urban settings prescribed in metropolitan zoning schemes: activity centres, major transport corridors, and fragmented infll in zoned residential areas. Figure 1.12 illustrates a full range of existing and prospective greyfeld redevelopment models.

*Activity centres*, ranging in scale from the CBD to the more numerous 'principal' and 'major' activity centres characteristic of poly-centred development in large cities (i.e., those involving retail and commercial activity centres) to a myriad of neighbourhood activity centres that constitute the basis for '20-minute neighbourhoods'. Tey have been a central plank in Australia's metropolitan planning schemes for decades, and in more recent times have featured in attempts to further intensify growth via *transit-oriented development* (TOD) of larger activity centres linked with railway stations. Te larger activity centres have been zoned as growth precincts to attract high-density apartment and commercial development.

*Major transport corridors*, a more recent model for greyfeld redevelopment, involves identifying linear transport corridors along main roads as

**Fig. 1.12** Greyfeld planning strategies for accommodating urban growth

#### **Fig. 1.12** (continued)

an additional focus for medium-rise, high-density development. Te requirements for this to work in Melbourne were set out by Adams (2009); they include prescriptive zoning controls over key aspects of corridor development, including upfront 'as of right' development to levels of between four and eight storeys. Much of this model has been built along the inner tram corridors of Melbourne and is now moving into middle suburbs. Te need to build for reduced car parking in such transitactivated GPR has now become a much frmer planning principle that should be continued into the GPR planning schemes in future (McClosky, 2009).

Te Melbourne corridor model of urban development from Adams (2009) has now been extended into greyfelds where no tram systems currently exist (Newman et al., 2019). Tis transit-activated corridor (TAC) model involves threading new low-carbon mobility infrastructures (light rail, trackless trams, walking and cycling paths) through greyfeld precincts in car-dependent suburbs based on new planning partnerships. A recent study by Hendrigan (2020) showed that the next 30 years of urban development in Perth could be accommodated by infll of no more than fve storeys around rail stations and along new light-rail lines, mostly in middle suburbs; this topic is developed further in the transit-activated GPR model outlined in Chap. 4.

*Green space-oriented development* has been advanced as a new model for more-sustainable greyfeld redevelopment that is focused on the potential for selectively and creatively redesigning and re-zoning residential areas abutting parks. Tis would involve re-zoning, buying out, and assembling neighbouring properties and rebuilding at higher densities on the fanks of public parks, especially those accessible to shops and rail stations via walking or cycling (Bolleter & Ramalho, 2020; Weller, 2019). Tis is a variant of place-activated GPR, but depends on accessing parkland space, which is not as commonly available as the opportunities across most greyfeld suburbs.

In Australia, each state government's planning provisions have residential zones that provide for a range of forms and intensities of development outcomes. Tough the names and legislative underpinnings vary, they can largely be referred to as 'no-go' (highly restricted redevelopment), 'slow-go' (limited redevelopment), and 'go-go' (large-scale, high-density


**Table 1.1** Principal residential zones in Australia's largest capital cities

redevelopment); these are illustrated for the largest capital cities in Table 1.1. Application of specifc zones sets the built-form and regeneration outcomes, and by altering the zone it is possible to alter expected outcomes. Evidence suggests that a particular zoning does not mean that the expected development always follows, as the market for housing depends also on what amenity is also associated with the housing being built not just its density zoning (Limb & Murray, 2021). However, certain zonings such as the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (illustrated in Fig. 1.13) that covers extensive tracts of Melbourne's suburbs efectively 'locks out' the prospect for more regenerative medium density residential infll projects of the type outlined in this book.

A majority of residential areas in Australian cities are zoned as either 'no-go' or 'slow go' in relation to higher-density redevelopment. Consequently, *fragmented infll* represents the majority of housing redevelopment currently occurring in greyfelds. It typically involves the construction of between one and four new dwellings on an established 'knock-down-rebuild' site, where the value of the land accounts for 70–80% or more of the value of the property asset prior to its redevelopment. It represents suboptimal redevelopment in many respects in that it generates a relatively low yield in terms of net new housing but is

**Fig. 1.13** The geography of residential zoning in Melbourne 2021. (Source: Planning layer from data.vic.gov.au)

accommodated within existing planning and building regulations, and as such has become a well-established model for small-scale property developers. However, it represents a slow burn of the local, public urban resource base:


*Transition 7* Redevelopment policies and strategies for greyfelds do exist but the majority of activity is suboptimal urban redevelopment which is built into the planning system in most redeveloping car-dependent cities and needs to be reviewed and revised at all planning levels and functions in order to transition to more regenerative urban redevelopment (a focus of Chaps. 3, 4, 5, and 7).

#### **2.8 Transition 8: Overcoming Failure of Current Urban Infll Strategies to Achieve Sustainable Redevelopment and Targeted Housing Yields**

Managing sprawl in Australia's largest cities will require at least 70% of net new housing to be constructed as infll within the strategic planning framework outlined above. Early reviews of urban consolidation policies reported no observable impact on this target (Goodman et al., 2010, p. 73).

A comprehensive review of housing infll outcomes in Melbourne over the past decade (Newton & Glackin, 2014; Newton et al., 2020) has also established multiple shortcomings in specifc elements of metropolitan strategies. In Melbourne, where the most comprehensive infll studies have been undertaken, approximately 50% of new housing is infll (brownfeld-to-greyfeld ratios vary depending on developer preferences for apartment construction, but are currently about 2:1, given that most high-rise apartment development is in the form of large brownfeld projects). Te public-transport access level of metropolitan road networks is not a magnet for attracting higher levels of infll (as most main roads just have poor-quality bus services, leaving households attached to car use and causing developers to continue to ofer dual car parks, even in some apartments on tram routes). Nor are designated activity centres attracting signifcant new housing, with the exception of the CBD pre-COVID-19; Limb and Grodach (2020) ofers similar evidence for Brisbane. Figures 1.9 and 1.14 illustrate that most residential infll in middle-ring greyfeld suburbs is piecemeal, small-lot subdivision.

**Fig. 1.14** Location of infll housing projects in the context of strategic planning schemes: City of Maroondah 2015; demonstrating that the majority of greyfeld infll is not strategically aligned. (Source: Derived from Victorian Government spatial data)

*Transition 8* Continue to develop and implement GPR policies and strategies as a response to the fact that most metropolitan planning is failing to deliver the kind of housing and transport outcomes that are set in their strategic plans (a focus of Chaps. 2, 6, and 7).

### **2.9 Transition 9: A New 'Missing Middle' Model for Housing and Urban Redevelopment: Greyfeld Precinct Regeneration**

A focus on the location and scale of greyfeld infll redevelopment projects is revealing. Tere continues to be a lack of residential construction projects in greyfelds that yield between 5 and 20 new medium-density


**Table 1.2** Dwelling yields of residential infll construction projects in Melbourne 2005–2016

Source: Newton et al., 2020

dwellings—a *missing middle* scale of residential redevelopment (Table 1.1). Larger-scale projects (specifcally, high-rise apartment buildings) are concentrated in brownfelds. Te type of infll housing also varies by the area's socio-economic status: locations with above-average socio-economic status are where 1:1 replacement and high-rise apartments dominate; and those with average-to-below-average socio-economic status are where 1:2–4 and 1:5–9 projects dominate. Tis points to the challenge of lot consolidation and its role in GPR.

'Missing middle' is a planning and development concept that has only been partially conceptualised and applied in the urban literature. Previously, 'missing middle' was used exclusively as a term related to a set of *medium-density housing types* that sit between detached single-family homes and mid-rise town houses or apartment buildings (Parolek, 2019). Missing-middle policy approaches to urban infll development are happening in countries with low-density cities (such as the USA, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia) where attempts are being made to increase the supply of medium-density housing. However, as shown in Table 1.2, only small-scale, lower-density infll projects are being undertaken, as they more readily conform to existing low-density residential zoning codes and fabrics (discussed in more detail in Chap. 2).

In this work, we are advancing an extended defnition of 'missing middle': *medium-density dwelling typologies accommodated in precinct-scale redevelopment projects* (Fig. 1.15) located primarily, but not exclusively, in a city's established, *middle-ring greyfeld suburbs* (Fig. 1.16). *If* infll targets for new housing are to be met, then 'missing middle' needs to be seen to include medium-density housing *with* precinct-scale residential regeneration: GPR.

**Fig. 1.15** The 'missing middle'—medium-density dwelling types in a greyfelds mid-scale precinct redevelopment. (Source: Newton et al., 2020)

**Fig. 1.16** The 'missing middle' greyfeld suburbs of a city. (Source: Place Design Group, 2019, p. 43)

Mid-rise (four- to eight-storey) apartments are more closely aligned to the scale of redevelopment envisaged for transit-activated corridors; while three- to four-storey medium-density dwelling typologies are a more appropriate scale for place-activated GPR in neighbourhoods away from main roads.

*Transition 9* Move from fragmented 'missing middle' housing redevelopments to 'missing middle' medium-density precinct-scale regenerative redevelopment (a focus of Chaps. 2, 7, and 8).

### **2.10 Transition 10: Establishing 'Precinct' as a Scale for Regenerative Redevelopment**

Precincts are the building blocks of cities, representing the scale at which most twentieth-century cities have been traditionally planned and developed. Tey also represent the scale at which established and ageing sections of cities can best be redesigned, retroftted, and *regenerated*.

A precinct is a unifed area of urban land with a clearly defned geographic boundary. In the context of this book, a precinct is synonymous with a neighbourhood or district. A typical precinct will contain private and public land with shared infrastructure. A defned boundary is critical to the notion of a sustainable precinct because many of the low-carbon precinct concepts involve *distributed infrastructure* that requires clear boundaries from a legal ownership and management perspective (this topic is the focus of Chap. 3). A well-defned boundary, with a clear governance structure, allows for the precinct to be managed and monitored at the local level, permitting it to function as an autonomous or semiautonomous piece of the city in which local managers drive ongoing and iterative improvements. Fraker (2013, p. 2) suggests that precincts represent opportunities to become integrators and aggregators of key builtenvironment infrastructures, both physical (energy, water, waste) and natural (such as green spaces), and depending on the size of the precinct, they have the potential to become their own micro-utility, as outlined in Transition 6 and Chap. 3.

Precinct size can vary considerably; for example, the well-known sustainable precincts BedZED in London and Hammarby Sjöstad in Stockholm are 1.7 ha and 250 ha, respectively. Te signifcance of size rests with the fact that distributed technologies tend to have physical thresholds and efciencies, where the size of the land parcel available will infuence the design approach and the technology solution.

Precinct Information Modelling systems now provide a fexible digital platform for precinct design and assessment that permits their boundaries, spatial contexts, and associated design attributes to be defned and redefned in real time to support scenario assessments in urban planning and development projects (a focus of Chaps. 7 and 8).

Precincts also need to be considered in relation to their wider geographic context. While a precinct approach is relevant for a neighbourhood or even a small town, far greater benefts play out at the city scale where multiple precincts interact. Tis is especially true when they are designed with the discipline of a cellular structure—that is, clustered around the local needs of a community such as for shops, services, and recreational space, or based on linkages between precincts via publictransport corridors, which greatly reduce private vehicle use and therefore carbon emissions, while improving connectivity between neighbourhoods (a focus of Chap. 4). Precincts also represent a scale at which regenerative redevelopment can contribute to mitigating neighbourhood as well as city-scale impacts of climate change, especially fooding and urban heat (a focus of Chap. 5).

Successfully producing long-term metropolitan policies, strategies, and plans capable of directing future urban development and redevelopment in an integrated fashion remains a challenge in terms of both horizontal planning (across provision of housing, transport, energy, water, waste, and social services) and vertical planning (across tiers of government and local communities). Identifcation of where and how to intervene and at what scale is especially challenging in greyfelds. Opportunities for place-activated and transit-activated GPR involving local housing and infrastructure redesign and regeneration are ideally signalled by the new concept of *district greenlining* in metropolitan and municipal plans. District greenlining would be a frst step in outlining the intention to regenerate a particular locality or series of localities; a process requiring vertically and horizontally integrated planning. Tis would enable the

**Fig. 1.17** District greenlining and nested precinct redevelopment

start of partnership development and community engagement (as outlined in Chap. 8) and allow planning to be scaled up in its ability to regenerate the middle suburbs. It would enable GPR projects to be attracted to and nest within districts that have been strategically identifed in larger-scale and longer-term metropolitan and municipal planning strategies for urban densifcation and infrastructure retroftting (Fig. 1.17). Ideally, district greenlining should be undertaken collaboratively between state and municipal planning authorities and major utilities as a necessary frst step in identifying future strategies and timetables for major infrastructure retroftting across the metropolitan area. In the absence of state-municipal level collaboration, future strategic planning by local governments needs to incorporate a district greenlining process to identify localities where change is required within their jurisdiction and where place-activated and transit-activated GPR projects are to be encouraged.

In summary, this book will show how and why precinct-scale redevelopment has the capacity to deliver more regenerative, resilient, and liveable neighbourhoods:


A growing number of design guides and assessment and rating tools are also available at precinct scale to assist design practitioners and municipal statutory planners lift the bar on urban infll projects, especially in relation to demonstrating the additionality associated with GPR projects (Chaps. 7 and 8).

*Transition 10* Providing a regenerative precinct focus in all greyfeld redevelopment starting with district greenlining.

## **3 The Challenge of GPR: Charting the Transition**

GPR represents an aspirational mission-oriented project (Mazzucato, 2018) designed to strategically steer research and urban innovation activities in addressing signifcant metropolitan planning challenges of scale and scope—in this case remaking greyfeld suburbs to be more regenerative and liveable in a suburban-to-urban transition (Newton et al., 2017). We introduce two new urban-development models capable of reactivating places and corridors at precinct scale (place-activated and transit-activated GPR), as well as district greenlining, which provides a broader strategic and spatial framework for specifc regenerative projects.

Te program of applied research has been guided by a framework that has evolved as a result of extensive co-design and co-production activities between researchers, government, industry, and community engagement (the Preface acknowledges them). Te framework has enabled the development of new planning concepts, instruments, and processes that constitute the innovation levers necessary to initiate a GPR transition. Transition-management concepts and methods (Loorbach, 2007; Newton, 2018) guided the process, and the framework shown in Fig. 1.18

**Fig. 1.18** Innovation arenas for establishing greyfeld precincts

illustrates key features of greyfelds precinct regeneration research and implementation, including next steps.

Te framework addresses three key questions:

*1. Where* should planners focus within a city and suburbs for candidate clusters of properties with high redevelopment potential suitable for place-activated and transit-activated GPR? New methods and tools were developed for housing-market assessment that can be aligned to future (municipal) strategies for urban regeneration and climate adaptation. Tese include a multi-criteria analysis process that highlights the capacity for enhancing active travel modes, green-space provision, and mixed-use development, as well as analysis that ensures an economically feasible yield of medium-density dwellings; and a demographic overlay identifying concentrations of neighbouring households potentially attracted to lot amalgamation by downsizing from under-occupied, ageing detached housing (a focus for Chaps. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7).

*2. What* should be redeveloped in a greyfeld precinct? Te process here is planning and design-led—a key integrative force in steering urban change by positively reshaping an existing urban morphology: buildings *and* streetscapes. Having identifed a district with properties capable of consolidation into a place-activated or transit-activated greyfeld precinct, the challenge becomes one of creating the optimal medium-density dwelling and landscape designs (and corridor layouts if transit-activated GPR) that can deliver demonstrably superior outcomes (additionality) compared to business-as-usual practice. As outlined earlier, our use of the term additionality refers to those attributes of neighbourhood regenerative redevelopment that need to accompany increased medium-density housing redevelopment; for example, zero-carbon energy, water-sensitive design and integrated water systems, improved mobility, social infrastructure, and enhanced green space—delivering multiple, measurable benefts to the local community.

Factors infuencing the design process for GPR are outlined in all the chapters that follow.

*3. How* can GPR be delivered in the established low-density middle suburbs? Te processes pioneered in *Greening the Greyfelds* involve:


tion with local government, and tailored to municipal ('town hall') and neighbourhood ('kitchen table') meetings.

• *Developing a case for establishing a Greyfelds Precinct Regeneration Authority* with a mandate for developing and overseeing a pipeline of appropriately targeted viable and innovative precinct-scale projects. Te *Greening the Greyfelds* project identifed this from the outset as a key strategy for thought leaders and urban practitioners who are addressing the greyfelds redevelopment challenge (Newton et al., 2011), and most recently by the Property Council of Australia (PCA, 2020). It would complement the work of existing authorities established in Australia in delivering better urban development in both the greenfeld growth areas and the brownfelds redevelopment areas. Additionality would be a mandatory requirement for project approval by any Greyfeld Precinct Regeneration Authority or local government. Consortia would be required to demonstrate additionality for the privilege (and proft) of a precinct regeneration project.

## **4 Conclusion**

What is being demonstrated in this book is the emergence of a new urban-planning model, greyfeld precinct regeneration, for regenerative urban redevelopment at the precinct scale that can address contemporary challenges facing fast-growing, low-density, car-dependent cities. As Newton (2019, p. 359) has argued: '*If* cities are to achieve the international performance goals and objectives outlined by the United Nation's Sustainable Development Goals and the New Urban Agenda as well as those identifed at a national level then it will be necessary for their constituent precincts to demonstrate performance outcomes that align with and add to, rather than subtract from, these objectives'. Tis applies to GPR whether it is place-activated or transit-activated. Tis book moves beyond the concept phase to show how new urban design, planning, and engagement processes can be enabled to make such urban innovation happen.

## **References**


**Open Access** Tis chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.

Te images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# **2**

# **The Greyfeld Challenge to Australian Governments**

## **1 Introduction**

Australia is an *urban nation*. Te Australian Bureau of Statistics indicates that 86% of the population currently lives in urban centres, and project that this is expected to reach 90% by 2040. Australia is also a country of immigrants, with around one-third of the population (7.5 million) born overseas (ABS, 2020a). In 2019, just over 60% of annual growth was due to net overseas migration, with the remaining 40% due to natural increase. Migration rates have increased since the turn of the millennium: between 2000 and 2020, Australia's population grew almost 24% to just over 25 million, with the destination of most migrants being the large cities. As a result, capital-city growth accounted for 79% of Australia's total population increase in the year ending 30 June 2019, and currently just over 17 million people now live in the capitals (ABS, 2020b).

Te greatest population increases have been in Sydney (5.3 million population, June 2019) and Melbourne (5 million, June 2019), where growth rates have averaged around 2% per annum. Maintaining this rate would see these cities double to reach 10 million residents soon after 2050. Burgeoning cities have strained infrastructure and lifestyles. Tere is little evidence that sustained growth rates and business-as-usual urban planning will maintain the quality of life to which Australians are accustomed. Given that projections indicate that these growth rates will be resumed into the future following a recovery from COVID-19 (Centre for Population, 2020), we argue that Australian cities cannot aford from either economic, social, or environmental perspectives—to continue to grow in the way they have.

National bi-partisan pro-migration policy has triggered the rapid acceleration of growth in Australian cities, but without commensurate national urban planning policies to manage it. Calls have increased for a national vision and plan for Australia's future settlement system that focuses especially on the fast-growing capital cities (Parliament of Australia 2019; PIA, 2018). At the time of writing, the COVID-19 pandemic had interrupted international travel, granting a temporary reprieve to migratory growth in Australia, and consequently dampening that component of urban economic activity driven by population growth. Could this pause present an opportunity to refect on current practices and develop a better set of blueprints for planning and managing future urban growth and development?

If we were to witness a widespread urban transformation in Australia, what would need to change and what form might this transformation take? Tis chapter contextualises the question: frst, by describing the major challenges facing Australian cities due to unsustainable growth, and second, by describing the impacts and shortcomings of urban planning across the three tiers of Australian government as related to regenerative urban development. Te chapter also ofers some high-level recommendations on how to address these challenges and how greyfelds precinct regeneration (GPR) can ft into this.

# **2 Challenges Faced by Australian Cities**

Australian urban-development challenges can be seen from multiple perspectives. Economic perspectives are most often discussed, as real estate is a national obsession and the construction industry is a signifcant driver of economic activity. Te dimensionality of urban-sustainability challenges include:


Tese issues overlap with the economic issues mentioned above. Te next sections provide some of the reasons why the planning systems in Australia have failed so far to provide solutions to such persistent challenges, centred on the greyfelds.

#### **2.1 Housing Needs and Services**

Despite decades of rapid urban growth, the Australian built-environment sector has struggled to reinvent itself since planting its mid-twentiethcentury roots frmly in *suburban* planning and development principles that set up the greenfeld edge-of-city development model as its key objective, efectively shelving issues of residential redevelopment. Tere was signifcant de-population of inner-city suburbs from the 1950s to late 1980s, as outer suburbs boomed (creating the 'donut' city). Community backlash from large-scale state government attempts at inner-city high-density urban renewal programs during the early postwar period saw 'slum clearance' schemes in the major capital cities abandoned. Public housing thereafter was primarily built in low-density suburban greenfeld estates.

A process of private-sector gentrifcation in selected inner-city neighbourhoods was underway by the mid-1970s in the larger capital cities, gathering pace in the 1990s up to the present, driven largely by the housing and locational preferences of individual households. Tis reurbanisation process was boosted by the federal government's Building Better Cities Program (1991–1996) that established a *brownfeld*  *redevelopment model* created in partnership with all tiers of government and industry that specifcally targeted abandoned port areas, disused hospital and commercial sites, and obsolete manufacturing sites, opening up signifcant precincts for high-density commercial and residential development (see Newton & Tomson, 2016 for an overview). However, the urban redevelopment process has not signifcantly engaged the greyfelds from a long-term planning perspective, as outlined in Chap. 1; this has exacerbated continued sprawl, as most afordable new housing has been delivered as low-density, greenfelds, project housing estates.

In parallel with urban population growth, house prices in Australia have risen 150% since 2000 while real wages have grown by less than 30% (Ryan-Collins & Murray, 2020). Te average foor area of new housing constructed in Australia's capital cities is the highest in the world at 236 square metres (Commonwealth Bank, 2020). Te cost of housing in Australia is also amongst the highest in the world; as a result, homeownership rates are falling as housing has been commodifed through 'investifcation' (Hulse & Reynolds, 2017). Tis has exacerbated inequality, with many frst-home buyers needing to 'drive until they can aford to buy'. Tis inequality is captured in the increasing suburbanisation of social disadvantage in Australia's large capital cities (Randolph & Tice, 2015) and worsened by socio-economic stress in car-dependent outer suburbs due to high fuel prices, as measured by the VAMPIRE (Vulnerability Assessment for Mortgage, Petroleum and Infation Risks and Expenses) index (Dodson & Sipe, 2008).

Residents living in fringe developments travel greater distances to perform daily functions. Trafc congestion and commuting times are emerging as major social and economic problems. A universal travel-time budget averaging about 60 minutes per day for the journey to and from work (the Marchetti constant) appears acceptable to people living anywhere in cities around the world (Newman & Kenworthy, 1999). Exceeding this '30-minute city' travel-time budget for a work trip is usually associated with a build-up of citizen dissatisfaction that triggers public calls for new metropolitan transport and land use plans. In 2019, the average commute in Sydney (77 minutes), Brisbane (67 minutes), and Melbourne (65 minutes) far exceeded the 30-minute trigger. Across the nation's mainland capitals the average commute increased 22% between 2002 and 2017 (Wilkins et al., 2019), revealing urban growth policies as dysfunctional. Automobile-dependent suburbs also tend to be correlated with poorer health, particularly obesity and related chronic diseases, which are less prevalent in walkable locations (Newman & Kenworthy, 1999; Tompson & Stevenson, 2019). Increasing urban density can create the population thresholds necessary to support more-accessible local services and public transport, reducing travel-time budgets.

Metropolitan strategy statements revolve around land-use planning and the issue of land supply. Complaints from traditional greenfeld housing industry lobby groups about a lack of land supply only ring true when considered against their particular, but still dominant, model of low-density greenfeld development. Tere *is* land elsewhere in the city it is just not used efciently. Te failings of vast areas of low-density housing are many, and well documented. Sprawling suburbs are no longer an appropriate model for our large cities. Rather, continuing sprawl is a byproduct of a planning system designed in former times under diferent conditions. Releasing land on the urban fringe is reactive, not strategic. Te government-controlled land-use planning system reacts to surges in demand of land for housing, and in the absence of planned alternative supply models the primary 'release valve' for afordable new housing is in greenfelds sprawl. As a consequence, the system continues to produce this sprawl, although more recently inner urban brownfeld infll redevelopment has begun to supply a greater proportion of new housing, albeit almost exclusively high-rise apartments (Tables 2.1 and 2.2). Te system needs a new model that can supply a much larger proportion and variety of housing into areas that provide better services and are closer to most employment. Tese areas are the established, middle greyfeld suburbs.

Table 2.3 describes the characteristic features of the three urban development arenas—brownfeld, greenfeld, and greyfeld—together with their principal development challenges and advantages. Greenfeld and brownfeld precincts both present models and opportunities for regenerative urban development. Currently, this is not the case for greyfelds redevelopment.


**Table 2.1** Change in population by ring in selected Australian capital cities (2001–2019)

Source: Victorian Department of Energy Land Water and Planning, based on ABS Regional Population. Note: the boundaries are based on whole SA2s providing approximation of distance rings, and are not perfectly comparable between cities

**Table 2.2** Comparison of housing stock across selected Australian capital cities (2016)


Source: Tabulated by Authors from ABS Census data 2016, counting dwellings, GCCSA

## **2.2 Ecological Issues**

Climate change mitigation/adaptation has dominated recent planning strategies, but these are just one aspect of broader systemic sustainability challenges. Since 2015, Australia has made commitments to numerous international frameworks to achieve increased sustainable development, including urban sustainability, which has signifcant implications for planners. Amongst these agreements are the United Nations Sustainable


**Table 2.3** The three arenas of urban development

Development Goals (SDGs) Agenda 2030 (September 2015), the New Urban Agenda (NUA, October 2016), and the Paris Climate Change Agreement (COP21, December 2015). Tese international goals cover a wider range of areas that afect, but were not previously considered within, the urban planning system, or, more broadly, within Australia's national regulatory systems, now covering responsible consumption and production, afordable clean energy, decarbonisation, and sustainable communities. Precinct-scale responses to these ecological challenges are the focus of Chaps. 5 and 7, given our premise/proposition that sustainable cities require sustainable neighbourhoods to both directly (via their built environment) and indirectly (via the consumption behaviour of their occupants) drive sustainable urban systems (Newton, 2013, 2019).

## **2.3 Planning Failure**

When Australian city planners look at these global and local goals, they invariably conclude that cities must reduce their urban sprawl, as not only is this kind of urban development ecologically damaging, it is the most seriously underprovided in social facilities and employment. To curtail sprawl, recent metropolitan planning strategies have highlighted the importance of urban consolidation to reduce automobile dependence by encouraging infll—redevelopment within the existing urban boundary—ideally integrated with transit. Metropolitan compact-city strategies set infll targets to increase urban density, but they fall short of describing models to deliver on these targets, with most existing development models misaligned. Te section below and chapters that follow will illustrate this in major Australian cities.

**Sydney.** Sydney's *A Metropolis of Tree Cities* (Greater Sydney Commission, 2018) illustrates the intersection of infrastructure, housing, community and placemaking, economic development, and sustainable resilience. Objective 10, 'More Housing Supply', refers to three key priorities: urban renewal adjacent to signifcant transport nodes; local infll development, preferably near high-amenity areas; and new communities in land-release areas, which will occur mainly in the Western sub-region. Te location of the frst and third priorities will be determined by the state government, whereas the second (local infll) is to be determined by councils together with the NSW state planning department. Regarding implementation, councils are provided with infll targets (spanning 5, 10, and 20 years) and will work with the Greater Sydney Commission to identify target areas. Tis set of policies is supported by placemaking and walkability strategies described in Objective 12, 'Great places that bring people together'. Other than a missing-middle design guide, no other methodology is supplied.

**Perth.** *Te Plan for Perth and Peel at 3.5 Million* (West Australian Planning Commission, 2018) is a strategic plan arguing for the benefts of agglomeration. While stating that there is sufcient land for future development, it also reveals that the city needs to achieve infll rates at 47% to 2050, with varying targets across the four sub-regions to achieve this. It then refers to a range of sub-regional planning frameworks, structure plans, local planning strategies, district/local structure plans, activity centre plans, local planning schemes, and local planning policy, with responsibility for implementation placed upon regional and local councils. To date, the plan's infll targets for housing have not been reached (Prka, 2021). Te *MetroNet Project* in Perth is building seven new rail lines out into the fringe suburban areas and is committed to building high-density Metro Hubs around the new stations, where some new designs have begun to appear. However, the middle suburbs continue to be neglected and no serious new model has been suggested to encourage precinct-scale redevelopment.

**Brisbane.** Brisbane's planning covers the whole South East Queensland region. *Shaping SEQ: South East Regional Plan* (Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning, 2017) opens with housing as its priority policy agenda, which is expressly focused on urban consolidation, particularly where new construction is close to areas served by strong transport networks and ample amenities. Rather than prescribe how this agenda will be achieved, the document specifes the infll targets for each sub-region, with approximately 60% infll for Brisbane and explicit density targets established for key activity centres (Table 2.4).

Furthermore, the Queensland Government makes commitments to sets of deliverables including planning timelines for state government departments, regions, and councils, development requirements for each


**Table 2.4** Density targets attributed to activity centres in SE Queensland

Source: *Shaping SEQ: South East Regional Plan* (Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning, 2017, p. 44)

area, and, signifcantly, an assessment of the planning provisions and development-assessment provisions to ensure efective implementation. Sets of benchmarks are also provided. By way of ensuring compliance, the SEQ planning document states that 'Each local government will be required to ensure their planning scheme refects Shaping SEQ and is not inconsistent with the SEQ regulatory provisions detailed in Planning Regulation 2017' (Department of Infrastructure, Local Government and Planning, 2017, p. 150). Tis makes it one of the few strategies that move from strategic overview to state-supported implementation. However, there is no evidence that infll rates are increasing, especially in the middle suburbs of Brisbane, Australia's lowest-density city (Grodach & Limb, 2020).

**Adelaide.** Adelaide has a much lower demand for new housing than the other major cities in Australia. *Te 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide* (Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, 2017) again opens with the need for more infll housing, which, while currently operating at 76%, aims to be at 85% by 2045, the majority of which is to be focused on activity corridors (for Adelaide, 'infll' can occur on vacant land within a built-up area that has been leap-frogged by development in peri-urban areas). Te 30-Year Plan covers a range of other policies currently being enacted, such as the Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan and a new Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act, illustrating how, together, they will provide a sustainable supply of land and dwellings into the future. While the plan indicates that the state will provide residential design guidelines and new models of housing, it, as do other cities, delegates implementation to local area planning for area identifcation, urban renewal policy, and rezoning, all of which are to be implemented by councils. Tis has generally been the case in all Australian cities since the 1950s, although the state government planning minister can intervene in any development project.

**Melbourne.***Plan Melbourne 2017–2050* (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, 2017) sets policies relating to economic development, housing, placemaking/liveability, infrastructure, and sustainability. Te areas of focus directly related to housing include:


All of these illustrate the relevance of increasing housing options in a market dominated by detached three-bedroom dwellings and, notably, the placement of these new housing options. Regarding location, there is a clear emphasis on proximity to transport, but also a focus on greyfeld infll. Policy 2.2.4, under Direction 2.2, aims to 'Provide support and guidance for greyfeld areas to deliver more housing choice and diversity', which is closely linked to Policy 5.2.1: 'Urban renewal precincts, greyfeld redevelopment areas and transit-oriented development areas (such as railway stations) are enablers in the development of an integrated transport system. Well-designed infrastructure for walking and cycling are critical elements. Te Victorian Government will work with local governments and other stakeholders to create neighbourhoods that support safe and healthy communities' (p. 100). Tese policies indicate that there is clear support for the concept of greyfeld regeneration, not only as a housing solution, but also as a solution to suburban amenity and liveability. But what about implementation?

Tese strategies contain policies on liveability, walkability, and placemaking, framed variously through the lenses of healthier places or connected places, or as ways to reduce congestion. However, other than the Brisbane plan, none provide information on their implementation, deferring to regional collectives of local governments. But despite this focus on application, Brisbane remains the Australian capital city with the lowest residential density (only marginally lower than Perth and Adelaide at approximately 17 persons/ha; Loader, 2011), indicating that pathways to application are still nowhere close to real, demonstrable implementation. Most states also have redevelopment agencies that work mostly on government land and try to demonstrate innovations such as the White Gum Valley (WGV) project in Perth through Development WA. However, the vast majority of development comes from the private sector, following the statutory guidelines provided by state and local governments.

Te statutory regulations guiding development in greyfelds are all set up for small-lot subdivision; hence, the present small-lot infll model dominates the greyfelds property development market. Existing development models and processes for housing projects above small scale (Table 1.2) tend to focus on either new greenfeld subdivisions, brownfelds, or inner-city high-rise apartments, as they are established and require little government intervention. By comparison, greyfeld models are not attracting the desired level of medium-density housing redevelopment (the 'missing middle'), as refected in Table 2.2, and the proportion of medium-density housing remains a relatively fxed proportion of the housing stock across the major capitals. Te construction of high-rise apartments in inner areas is more readily positioned to respond to shifts in demand, such as international students and retirees, but limits to landsupply opportunities are shifting the demand into middle suburbs, where meeting infll rates is currently not possible with medium- or high-density housing due to zoning restrictions.

Greyfeld infll development is thus resulting in suboptimal outcomes. It is following the statutory guidelines that allow piecemeal redevelopment approach of 'knock-down-rebuild', involving the demolition of older structures and replacement with either a new detached dwelling or small-lot subdivisions that have many shortcomings (as outlined). Despite infll policies, net housing yields and density gains in the greyfelds are small (e.g., 1:1, 1:2–4). Where redevelopment infll ratios are low, further site assembly and higher-order development outcomes are squandered by the virus-like knock-down-rebuild residential supply currently occurring (Leshinsky et al., 2018). If infll is to be successful in curtailing sprawl, higher densities need to be achieved through redevelopment opportunities linked with lot consolidation and precinct-scale regeneration.

In the absence of greyfeld redevelopment at precinct scale, small-lot infll subdivision of single properties typically results in loss of private green space due to more area dedicated to buildings and car space. Loss of green space has multiple negative impacts, as described in Chaps. 5 and 7. Collectively, poor-quality infll development, perceptions of developer greed and overdevelopment, loss of green space, and erosion of suburban qualities—what we have termed a 'virus' (Fig. 1.9)—stigmatise infll development, strengthening community resistance in the form of NIMBYism. It is not hard to feel sympathy for such NIMBY reactions, as there is no opportunity to see diferent kinds of precinct-scale development, apart from a few demonstration sites such as WGV (Chap. 3) and the City of Maroondah precinct project (Chap. 7). Te problems lie in the barriers set up in planning structures and the whole approach to redevelopment, which this book sets out to change.

#### **2.4 Urban Structure**

Overcoming sprawl and more successfully engaging with greyfeld regeneration in the established urban fabric requires a more strategic approach to planning. Tis includes fnding larger parcels of land in the best locations for higher-density infll, which, in turn, depends on fnding the right land parcels in the appropriate urban arena and then creating an appropriate urban structure.

Urban structure relates to the arrangement of blocks, streets, buildings, open space, and other features of an urban area that are set into statutory controls along with other regulations such as density, setbacks, and urban mix. Getting the urban structure right matters, at both the city level and the neighbourhood level, as the urban structure dictates the potential of a redevelopment location and whether larger-scale developers can make sufcient money out of a site, or a collection of sites, to warrant them seeking investment fnance. If not, and without the prospect of municipality-initiated rezoning, the original urban structure will continue to favour the single-lot subdivision redevelopments that we are now seeing.

At the neighbourhood or precinct scale, where single lots can be consolidated because the urban structure allows or even encourages this, whole street blocks can be redeveloped into greyfeld regeneration sites capable of accommodating denser, mixed land use that supports distributed infrastructures and more-active forms of mobility. Tese can be unlocked from the barriers in the planning system that prevent their aggregation into precincts, as will be explained in more detail throughout this book. However, they may still not be sufciently well structured to allow their full regenerative potential to be reached, as they may not be linked closely enough to major utilities' planned infrastructure retrofts or to the introduction of new urban services, especially quality public transport, as will be outlined further in Chap. 4. A new framework and associated principles and processes for integrated urban and water planning pioneered by the CRC for Water Sensitive Cities (Chesterfeld et al., 2021) has identifed pathways for how a district greenlining process might proceed.

At the larger city scale, a good urban structure is essential to reduce travel-time budgets and, as outlined in Chap. 4, this may need new midtier transit systems to be built along main roads so that land value improves enough for urban developers to want to invest in larger-scale urban redevelopments in the middle suburbs. Tus, the national push towards creating cities of walkable/cyclable neighbourhoods, such as Plan Melbourne's '20-minute neighbourhoods', is only possible by clustering land uses, such as residential uses, close to daily activities linked to shops, services, work, and school, to improve proximity and allow efcient transport modes for longer trips. In bigger cities, the most efcient transport mode is frequent mass transit. Sprawling suburbs and car dependence create the congestion on arterial roads that has seen travel-time budgets increase across all major cities. Wider roads simply do not help, as the bottlenecks still occur somewhere else, such as at popular destinations like employment or shopping centres. Given that mass transit can move 10–50 times the number of people per hour per kilometre of lane space compared to a suburban street or freeway (Newman & Kenworthy, 2015), it becomes clear that to maximise transport and land use efciency, big cities must be built around transit, not cars.

#### **2 The Greyfeld Challenge to Australian Governments**

Tis must now include middle suburbs that were generally built in the early days of car dependence, and where the resulting urban structures need to be changed if they are to be given opportunity for regeneration and increased density. Tus, integrating land-use and transport planning, specifcally with higher-density residential, services, and employment uses within walking distance of mass transit, must be part of middle-suburb redevelopment. Such transit-oriented developments (TODs) are the key to developing a good city-scale urban structure, as they support public transport use and reduce the need to drive; Chap. 4 discusses this in detail.

Te term 'precinct' can be considered a synonym for 'neighbourhood' or 'district'. It is a unifed area of urban land with a clearly defned geographic boundary, representative of the typical building blocks of cities. Figure 2.1 shows arrangements of precincts, including a string of precincts capable of being built along a high-capacity transit route to form a high-density transit-activated corridor (TAC; described in greater detail in Chap. 4), or a cluster of precincts that form a sustainable municipality and, ultimately, city region. A typical precinct will contain private and public land with shared infrastructure, with larger precincts being typically characterised by:


**Fig. 2.1** Regenerative precincts as the building blocks of sustainable cities. a) Idealised scale for a precinct: 10 min/800m walk radius. b) Collection of walkable precincts: building blocks of a sustainable city. c) Transit-activated corridor of precincts. (Source: Thomson et al., 2019)

To increase densities within the walkable catchment of transit, medium-high density development is needed. Of particular interest is *medium-density, mid-rise precinct scale development*, which we defne as 'the missing middle' from a housing perspective. Policies by planning authorities (particularly in Melbourne and Sydney) need plans to encourage more of this dwelling typology. While defnitions vary, the consensus is that the missing middle needs to be represented by upwards of 30–50 dwellings per hectare, rather than the 12 found in traditional cardependent suburbs. Tis equates to terraces, multi-dwelling townhouses, and residential apartment buildings, with building stock between three and eight storeys high—the type of density commonly seen in European cities and in Australia's older urban areas.

Te higher-density end of this range is likely to be restricted to TACs. Other greyfelds precincts that are more place-activated than transitactivated, adjacent to activity centres, schools, health facilities and green spaces, could be redeveloped with multiple advantages at the lower end of this range. Both transit-activated and place-activated GPR require land assembly as a prerequisite. Tis will be critical to greening the greyfelds and is a step that planning systems need to recognise as being the 'missing step in creating the missing middle'.

As suggested above, one of the main reasons greenfeld development on the fringes still dominates city growth in Australia despite the numerous advantages of infll (in both brownfeld and greyfeld) is the greater complexity of delivering infll projects. Diferent development models involving planning, urban design, fnance, construction, and community engagement are required for each. Tis book will outline how to achieve better redevelopment of greyfeld middle suburbs via GPR. A key diference between brownfeld and greenfeld sites, on the one hand, and greyfelds, on the other hand, is that the latter need much more attention given to land assembly to enable scaling up to a precinct.

From an urban standpoint greyfeld redevelopment ofers the greatest benefts, but also the greatest challenges. Greyfelds come with lot sizes averaging roughly 600 square metres, depending on state and municipality, existing physical infrastructure (utilities, roads), and social services (schools, shops, parks, and health care). Delivery of missing middle GPR in the locations with the highest regeneration potential is frequently challenged by property owners of nearby occupied residential lots. Larger (amalgamated) lots provide greater fexibility for design innovation. But another challenge, less tangible but no less signifcant, is cultural. In the established inner- and middle-ring suburbs in Australian cities, built when the 'quarter-acre dream' was marketed as an aspiration for all homebuyers, the quarter-acre block (or at least a detached dwelling) remains a tightly held ideal, albeit fading (Chap. 6). Established communities tend to have a strong identity and to resist change, and there are many examples of residents banding together to oppose redevelopment and changes to the existing 'character' (Dovey et al., 2009). As this is entirely understandable, a diferent model needs to ensure that the character of a place is enhanced whilst enabling other benefts of urban change to occur.

#### **2.5 An Urban-Planning Transformation Agenda**

To unlock the potential of the greyfelds will require nothing less than a precinct-focused urban planning transformation agenda—but one that goes beyond the few large-scale, economically focused precincts currently on state government agendas for major cities. Tese include transportnode-oriented precincts around established or new metro rail stations and regeneration/renewal/redevelopment precincts, where there is a change in the underlying use of the existing land. Tis includes regenerating obsolete industrial land or repurposing an ongoing major use, such as shopping centres reimagined as town centres and mixed-use precincts with residential, commercial development and civic uses integrated into the existing use; and economic and innovation precincts that are colocated with globally signifcant government or industrial R&D centres. Tese are seen to require enabling through public- and private-sector strategic planning, policy, partnerships, and engagement (PCA, 2020). Tese equate to the existing major activity centres of cities illustrated in Fig. 1.12. Tis fgure also draws attention to the signifcant categories of greyfeld precinct that lie outside the 'mega-precincts' currently on the radar screens of government and industry: green-space-oriented development and place-activated and transit-activated GPR.

*Greening the Greyfelds* represents an agenda that seeks opportunities for site amalgamation through incentives or mandating minimum lot sizes for infll redevelopment that can be used to enable lot amalgamation. Lot amalgamation usually requires the involvement of redevelopment authorities as facilitators for land packaging that delivers good-quality and *desirable* medium-density, mid-rise, mixed-use, transitoriented precincts that local people will *want* rather than try to oppose them through NIMBY groups.

If this happens well in the middle suburbs, new developments in periurban suburbia that are car-dependent and far from major urban services will die away as an option for continuing the growth of traditional lowdensity Australian suburbs. Te demand will simply be replaced by a better option. Well-designed, well-located, mixed-use, medium-density precincts can regenerate the urban fabric of middle suburbs by creating twenty-frst-century urban villages that are well-designed to create demand for a new desirable way of living. Tese need to be well-located close to public transport, and ofer a housing mix to cater to diverse populations and integrated land uses to place residents closer to jobs, services, recreation, retail, and transport.

However, it is not only the urban structure that would beneft from changes in the planning system. To address ecological sustainability requires a response to rapid changes in technology for energy, water, and waste services as well as mobility that can help with an urban sustainability transformation; but these are not yet being applied to urban infll because we lack the right planning framework to facilitate their introduction. Tis will be pursued in Chap. 3.

## **2.6 Conclusion**

Tis chapter has shown that the greatest need in Australian cities is to regenerate the middle suburbs, or 'green the greyfelds'. It has also shown that all the current metropolitan strategic planning statements support consolidating such areas, but are failing to deliver them. Te key reason that has been shown here is that the middle suburbs require signifcant land-assembly instruments to make precinct-scale regeneration viable; hence, the only product that meets the statutory requirements at present is low-density, small-lot subdivision. Larger-scale regenerative development has happened in the inner areas in the brownfelds and on the greenfeld fringes where consolidated land ownership has made it possible. Tus, greening the greyfelds in ageing established suburbs requires planning and delivery processes that include a signifcant land-assembly focus capable of delivering greyfeld precinct regeneration. Tis does not need signifcant government funding unless the whole redevelopment process is done by government itself. Te Building Better Cities Program in the 1990s set up land-assembly and development processes with state and local governments and multiplied the capital funds through partnerships with the private sector. A similar process of partnerships would be needed to generate the right land assembly, design, community engagement, and sustainability outcomes for place-activated and transitactivated GPR (described more fully in later chapters).

### **References**


Prka, R. (2021). Infll targets under the microscope. *Te Western Australian*, 29 March.

Property Council of Australia. (2020). *Principles of successful precincts*. PCA.


**Open Access** Tis chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.

Te images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# **3**

# **Distributed Green Technologies for Regenerating Greyfelds**

## **1 Introduction**

Te chapter begins by looking at the history of technological change and how big shifts occur after major economic crisis. It will then outline the transition to new technologies and urban systems after the COVID-19 based economic crisis to show why and how distributed green technologies are likely to be mainstreamed in the 2020s and beyond. Tis will need to be associated with tangible urban system planning changes such as the regeneration of greyfeld precincts to form part of a wider urban technological transition. Indeed, it should be possible to use the greyfeldgreening process as a substantial catalyst in creating twenty-frst-century net zero urban developments linked with the best in smart, innovative, afordable urban technology.

Mainstreaming such technology requires initiating socio-technical transitions that enable distributed infrastructure to fourish (Newton, 2008; Newton et al., 2019). Tis chapter provides some ideas on how this transition will occur for each type of green distributed infrastructure with application to both types of greyfeld regeneration: the place-based systems will be less dense and so can do more with green infrastructure; the transit-based systems will be denser with more opportunity for shared distributed technologies. Innovative case studies from Perth will be used to illustrate this rapid change in technology based on demonstrations of distributed renewable energy and storage; integrated water systems; and zero waste to landfll using closed-loop circular economies. Each of the case studies involves smart technology systems for sharing and efciency.

#### **1.1 Technological Innovation: The Sixth Wave**

Te 2020 collapse of the global economy due to the COVID-19 pandemic has challenged planners to think about long-term trends and what the future could hold for cities and regions, especially in the context of the climate agenda. Te history of economic transitions after crises reveals that they unleash waves of new technologically based innovation (Batty, 2018). Historically, these have been associated with diferent energy and infrastructure systems and their impact on transport and urban forms. Typically, the new technologies had already begun to emerge before the start of each economic collapse, then proceeded to induce a new economy to emerge as new investors chose to create something better and longer-lasting. Tis is happening now in cities across the world, and certainly in Australia (Newman, 2020).

Figure 3.1 and Table 3.1 set out the establishment of each of the six waves of innovation and the emergence of the new sixth wave, which involves a critical convergence between the digital transformation ushered in by the ffth wave and the green technologies driving the sixth wave. Te new smart sustainable green economy is likely to be driven for the next 30 years and beyond by global sustainability agendas, such as the 2015 Paris Agreement and the work of the United Nations Sustainable Development Group, and have a strong base in a cluster of innovative technologies: renewable energy, electro-mobility, integrated watersensitive biophilic urbanism (the basis of blue-green cities), circulareconomy technologies, and smart cities, which can all be seen as representing distributed green technologies. Te resulting urban transformations from these new infrastructure systems are likely to build relocalised centres and denser precincts (Newman, 2020; Mathews, 2018),

**Fig. 3.1** Waves of innovation through industrial history and into the future. (Source: Adapted from Hargroves & Smith, 2005)

core elements in greening the greyfelds. Tis book will set out how best to enable these technologies within the context of greyfeld regeneration.

Te innovations for this sixth wave are able to attract the cultural and political momentum attached to something much wanted and needed (Rifkin, 2019), but which has not been possible until now (Webb et al., 2018). Te opportunity for rapid growth in the new green economy rests on a surplus of savings in the world and a cost of capital expected to be low for many years. Consequently, substantial long-term loans can drive the next green economy, including an agenda of greening the greyfelds, particularly when greyfelds projects are presented as the net-zero demonstrations that the world of fnance is now requiring them to be (Garnaut, 2019, 2021). As shown below, they are also likely to be the cheapest way to do urban redevelopment.


**Table 3.1** Technological, societal, and settlement transitions

## **2 New Distributed Technologies**

#### **2.1 Renewable Energy, Rooftop Solar, and Batteries**

Te dramatic global growth in renewable energy (solar and wind) in the past decade (Fig. 3.2) has been due to these technologies quickly becoming the cheapest form of power as well as being easy to mass-produce and

**Fig. 3.2** Dramatic changes in world's power sources in the past decade. (Source: Drafted from data provided in OurWorldinData.org)

implement in most cities and economies. Tis is particularly so with rooftop solar power, as it enables local production and consumption to be integrated, providing the base for localising other infrastructures.

Te new patterns of urbanism that are emerging around these systems are already showing why cities will become much more distributed into local areas of infrastructure management—but they will still need to be integrated into a city-wide or region-wide grid system for equity and balance (Green & Newman, 2017; Newton & Newman, 2013). Distributed technologies lend themselves to precinct-scale development because of the benefts that result from clustered utility networks between multiple buildings (such as load balancing, economies of scale, and afordable sharing of the new technologies). Te rapid growth in solar power has now moved into shared solar systems for medium- and high-density housing enabled by localised solar utilities with batteries and blockchainbased management; industrial estates with shared solar power appear to be next, although rural and remote settlements were among the frst expected to beneft from solar technology (Galloway & Newman, 2014).

Te next task appears to be how to achieve grid stabilisation, and this seems to be heading toward localised, community-scale batteries (Sproul, 2019). Tese are becoming available for many other urban functions including electro-mobility, which, as shown in Chap. 4, can be part of grid stabilisation. Gas turbines (and diesel back-up in small grids) have been seen as necessary for grid stabilisation, but lithium-ion batteries are now cost-efective at over 150 MW, making them cheaper than gas turbines and more efective at providing a rapid peaking function (Denholm et al., 2019). Tis means that precincts of zero-carbon development will have an important role in future grid management, especially as electricvehicle batteries can become part of this integrated low-carbon grid system in a cheaper way than the large-scale fossil fuel energy systems of the twentieth-century economy.

Tus, 100% renewable power grids can now be built cost-efectively (AEMO, 2020) and should be part of every new or retroftted precinct. Tis is now a market-driven process but is helped by the large and growing sector of ethical investing and the commitment to only funding Net Zero projects by the world's largest fnance company Blackrock and the other 574 investment companies representing US\$54 trillion in Climate 100+ (https://www.climateaction100.org/) (Fink, 2020). However, there is still work to be done on how to make shared solar power work in precincts (DISER & ARUP, 2020; Green et al., 2020). Greyfeld regeneration at precinct scale represents an important target for demonstrating how to integrate a range of distributed green technologies.

#### **2.2 Integrated Water-Sensitive Systems Combined with Biophilic Urbanism**

Stormwater capture and wastewater treatment can also be harnessed to minimise demand on centralised potable-water systems to support distributed green infrastructure (nature-based systems that fulfl urban functions and facilitate adaptation to climate change, as discussed in Chap. 5). Tere is a growing ability to do this at precinct scale that has been mainstreamed in many places (Byrne et al., 2020; Kenway et al., 2019; Newton & Rogers, 2020). Harvesting rainwater at building and precinct scale is now increasingly on the urban-planning agenda in an age of drying climates for many cities.

Te use of small-scale wastewater treatment systems has been trialled in places like Hammarby-Sjostad in Sweden (Newman et al., 2017) but this is not likely to be easy for most cities. However, the most obvious need is to build water-sensitive cities that use grey water for local purposes (Byrne et al., 2020). Tis is part of an integrated water system that includes rainwater harvesting and stormwater capture. Tese new urban water-management techniques enable biophilic urbanism and blue-green cities as a means of better linking water to local open space and gardens, as well as building natural systems into and onto buildings with green roofs and green walls and converting engineered concrete drains to natural water courses. Te best examples have been in dense tropical cities like Singapore that have been able to use high-rise structures as greened habitat (Newman, 2014), but there is no reason why greyfeld precincts could not feature such a mix of blue-green technologies and nature-based services (Newton & Rogers, 2020). Te biophilic-cities and nature-based systems networks are growing worldwide (Dumitru & Wendling, 2021) and are demonstrating that local biophilic features of cities are playing a very strong role during the COVID-19 lockdown in providing a healthy link to nature (https://www.biophiliccities.org/covid19-research). Te GPR model employs biophilic urbanism concepts for both water-sensitive and biodiversity-sensitive design in 'missing middle' medium-density residential redevelopment (Chap. 7).

### **2.3 Circular-Economy Technologies**

Cities have been attempting for some time to reduce their metabolism (i.e., their resource inputs and waste outputs; see Newman & Kenworthy, 1999). Tis has been given a new boost as the core agenda for a *circular economy* (GI-REC, 2018; Petit-Boix & Leipold, 2018). Te technology for waste disposal traditionally has been centralised, large-scale, and largely linear rather than circular; that is, it has been landfll-based and had little emphasis on recycling unless cities were running out of space. Te new systems for the circular economy are, like the other innovations discussed above, much smaller in scale and can be used in more localised and distributed situations. A circular economy can include zero waste in precinct construction (USGBC, 2019); how food waste can be managed locally in compost systems at precinct scale (Graham et al., 2019); and how micro-factories located within municipalities can accept a range of local waste streams such as plastics and transform them into useful products (Sahajwalla, 2019; Perinotto, 2021). Larger new industrial estates operating on industrial-ecology principals and capable of processing multiple waste fows at larger volumes are also essential parts of a new green urban economy, but their locations are likely to be in peri-urban regions.

#### **2.4 Smart City-Based Demand Management**

Smart Cities, an agenda that has rapidly grown in the twenty-frst century, has many features aligned with regenerative urban development. Te cluster of innovations relevant to distributed green infrastructure solar photovoltaic power, batteries, electro-mobility, circular economy, and integrated water and waste systems—have two key characteristics: they are modular and thus can be employed in urban precinct design as localised systems; and they work even better if resource consumption and waste generation is reduced. Both can be infuenced signifcantly by smart city-based demand management as long as they are part of strategic urban planning.

*Localised systems*. New smart-city technologies include an ability to enable any system to learn and self-optimise through artifcial intelligence (AI) and machine learning. Many functions of AI have been envisioned to help the zero-carbon agenda (Rolnick et al., 2019), but optimising precinct infrastructure through machine learning is just emerging. GPR operations can be optimised with the application of sensors to manage their energy, water, waste, and mobility more efectively by continuously learning from resident occupants as their data are being processed, and by providing feedback, often in real time. Tey are akin to neural networks that are constantly improving the urban ecosystem in which they operate.

Welfare for people with disabilities or those in aged care can also be improved with these kinds of infrastructure systems; for example, through service monitoring and management, resource optimisation, and identifying areas for cost-efciency. Localised smart systems can be managed to provide more-efective solutions for the operation of the built environment, and greyfeld precincts are an ideal scale for medium-density, mixed-use development where *shared infrastructure and services* can become the norm.

*Reduced consumption*. Smart technologies can be used to reduce consumption by supporting change in household behaviour and social practices and subsequent demand and supply management (Creutzig et al., 2018). Smart building demand management systems (Pears & Moore, 2019) enable householders and businesses to understand what they are consuming at any point in time with mobile phone apps and appliance displays in homes and ofces, and simple programmable options that build in the optimal efciencies for use of energy, water, and other services (Byrne et al., 2019). Tese include apps, such as the Climate Clever Homes calculator, that identify the best utility-services options for a local area (https://www.climateclever.org/homes); they can also be built in from the start as part of a zero-carbon home or precinct. A renewed focus on re-localising living, working and activity spaces associated with COVID-19 has the prospect of advancing the growth of 20-minute neighbourhoods and reducing travel and emissions.

# **3 Case Studies**

### **3.1 White Gum Valley**

In the suburb of White Gum Valley (WGV) in Perth, Australia, a new GPR project has been developed using many of the technologies outlined above to demonstrate how it could meet zero-carbon and other United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Wiktorowicz et al., 2018) using One Planet Living accreditation. Te project has 100 units of housing on an old school site and has been redeveloped in close consultation with the local community at medium-density levels of approximately 45 dwellings per hectare. Development of WGV has been facilitated by having only one owner (the land-development agency DevelopmentWA).

WGV features a range of building types, including two-, three-, and four-storey apartment clusters and attached and detached homes. Tey all rely on leading energy strategies including:


Other features include:


Applied research undertaken by Curtin University, with the CRC for Low Carbon Living (https://developmentwa.com.au/projects/residential/white-gum-valley/overview) addressed multiple sustainability issues, including energy and water use, technology performance, the interrelation between behaviour change, design, and technology, the facilitation of knowledge sharing (Tomson et al., 2019; Byrne et al., 2019; Breadsell et al., 2019a, b). To test the viability of solar battery storage on strata buildings, the project demonstrated the potential for a blockchain-based sharing system, and potential for a new 'citizen utility' governance model, gaining attention from around the world (Green & Newman, 2017; Green et al., 2020; Eon et al., 2019).

Te signifcance of innovation at WGV is that it demonstrated that a net-zero carbon urban regeneration project can:


#### **3.2 East Village**

East Village is a planned, 1000-person residential development similar to neighbouring WGV that incorporates a blockchain system built in from the outset for sharing energy, water, and solar-power systems (Byrne et al., 2020). Te frst stage includes 36 townhouses and two adjoining apartment sites for 60 dwellings, to be occupied at a higher density than WGV (https://developmentwa.com.au/projects/residential/east-village-at-knutsford/overview). Te project's strata systems allow the townhouses and apartments (which are individually owned) to share infrastructure as well as the more conventional access to common property, and are managed by the strata management company. Individual dwellings are metered, with smart meters and blockchain technology providing each home the potential to both produce and consume energy and water that may be shared between properties, and to enable recharging of electric vehicles using a shared fast charger. Tis smart metering allows for resource optimisation and reduces utility costs. Te integration of infrastructure through smart technology enables creation of net-zero, afordable, regenerative development of greyfelds. Te project also contains a circular-economy demonstration building made entirely of recycled products (https://www. architectureanddesign.com.au/news/curtin-university-living-labshowcases-sustainable).

# **4 Conclusion**

Te regeneration of greyfeld precincts represents an opportunity to trial new technologies in combination with precinct-scale urban regenerative planning and design. COVID-19 is a potential accelerator of these innovative, distributed green infrastructure systems, given the widespread debate that has begun about 'what needs to change' in cities. Innovations that were ripe for implementation pre-COVID now have a new opportunity to be mainstreamed. Perhaps the world's cities are poised to create a new model of precinct-driven urban regeneration based on:


Urban professionals will need to rapidly change the manuals of modernism still so prevalent in their fourth-wave engineering designs and statutory regulations, or else they will miss these early chances to be part of the sixth wave. Tis book is designed to help cities quickly focus on how to mainstream their new planning and assessment systems to create new sustainability exemplars of zero-carbon, afordable urbanism in innovative greyfeld regeneration programmes.

## **References**


ries. In P. Newton, D. Prasad, A. Sproul, & S. White (Eds.), *Decarbonising the built environment: Charting the transition* (pp. 143–162). Palgrave Macmillan.


**Open Access** Tis chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.

Te images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# **4**

# **Transport and Urban Fabrics: Moving from TODs to TACs with Greyfeld Regeneration**

# **1 Introduction**

Greyfelds were built as automobile-related urban fabric from the 1940s onwards, and are now highly dysfunctional, as they no longer provide the best housing options but they are unable to cope with the trafc demands of the twenty-frst-century city. Although they are desperately in need of regeneration, there is no model that can facilitate their transition in a functional and sustainable way. Tis chapter will introduce a new model of how main roads and their associated precincts can become the focus for greyfeld urban regeneration through an integrated approach using new transit technology, their associated micro-mobility systems, and the distributed infrastructures for net-zero buildings and precincts outlined in Chap. 3.

# **2 Urban Fabrics and Urban Metabolism**

Urban fabric theory (Newman et al., 2016) is based on an analysis of how cities have created diferent urban fabrics around their transport choices over centuries due to the average travel time budget for the journey to work, which has been seen to be a consistent driver of how cities are shaped and reshaped (Marchetti, 1994; Newman & Kenworthy, 2015). It shows that all cities have three 'cities' within their structures:


Urban fabric theory suggests that all three fabrics are merging and need to be recognised, respected, and regenerated, but in recent decades the demand has been for more walking fabric (Gehl, 2010) and transit fabric (Ewing & Bartholomew, 2013; Newman & Kenworthy, 2015; Sharma & Newman, 2017), especially in the rebuilding of earlier automobile fabric in middle greyfeld suburbs that are in need of regeneration. Te impossibility of building further automobile capacity into such areas and the inability to enable consistent urban regeneration despite increased demand for more compact, higher-density cities have become major issues in planning and transport policy, and they suggest the need for a simultaneous achievement of improved transit along main roads, micro-mobility along feeder streets, and stations that can be associated with signifcant precinct-scale urban regeneration, housing densifcation, and decarbonisation. Tis is a solution for the sustainable redevelopment of greyfelds, though it should also be employed in the design of new estates on the fringe, or even rural settlements.

Efective and efcient corridor-transit infrastructure *and* urban-fabric improvements together enable a zero-carbon corridor to create a market that demands attention. Tis new market is being driven by the fact that fnance for infrastructure investment is demanding net-zero outcomes, governments are wanting urban development to contribute to their netzero goals, and new mid-tier transit technology is becoming faster than automobile trafc in most cities, creating an opportunity to deliver transit services that are less welfare-oriented and more broadly in demand as part of urban regeneration (Newman & Kenworthy, 2015).

#### **4 Transport and Urban Fabrics: Moving from TODs to TACs…**

Transit-activated corridors (TACs) are proposed as a new mechanism to help develop more transit fabric in twenty-frst-century cities that builds on traditional approaches and adds a high level of twenty-frstcentury innovation. Diferent parts of cities have diferent urban fabrics, and lend themselves to diferent types of intervention and change, as summarised in Tables 4.1 and 4.2, which show that the three types of fabric also have diferent urban metabolisms (Tomson & Newman,


**Table 4.1** Resource-input variations between urban form types

Source: Thomson and Newman (2018)


**Table 4.2** Waste–output variations between urban form types

Source: Thomson and Newman (2018)

2018). It is possible to see a greening the greyfelds story evolve as communities and governments seek to recreate more walking and transit fabric out of the oldest post-war automobile fabric, which is now failing. Such development can have many advantages, as outlined in this book, prime among them being reduced ecological footprint and enhanced liveability that can achieve net-zero outcomes with more diverse housing at a range of price points.

## **3 Cities' Current Mobility Trends and Trajectories**

Te 1950s began the era of car-based urban sprawl that created cities' enormous spatial spread, especially in the new world cities of North America and Australasia. Tis was associated with growth in highconsumption lifestyles that were locked in by a dependence on cars and oil, along with the adoption of new suburban living patterns and a culture of privatism. Densities plummeted and planning systems locked the new normal into their strategic and statutory systems. Tere was limited choice as the suburbs were rolled out in 'cookie-cutter' fashion. Te differences in resource use and waste impacts is very large between the three urban fabrics (as shown in Tables 4.1 and 4.2) and do not appear to be related to an income efect; for example, in Australian cities, inner suburbs are higher-income areas than outer suburbs, in contrast to most US cities (Newman & Kenworthy, 2015). European trends were much less 'suburban', and urbanism remained as an infuence on city planning in those countries during much of the twentieth century. However, there has been a surge in peri-urbanism in the twenty-frst century as the established sections of European cities have become very desirable and expensive with peri-urban villages receiving more afordable housing but generally being less transport-friendly (Piorr et al., 2011).

Late twentieth-century suburban 'gated' communities in the suburbs of new world cities ('don't let densities change') meant that many people were forced to move further out into what has been variously called urban scatter, peri-urban, or tree-change areas where low-income residents are even more at risk socially, economically, and environmentally (Sipe & Dodson, 2008) and very car-dependent. Tis is a future that is further exacerbated by climate change and the concomitant bushfre threat, now especially evident on the fringes of Australian low-density cities (Newton et al. 2018; Norman et al., 2021).

Re-urbanisation of inner and central cities via compact-city strategies and infll policies has become part of twenty-frst-century urbanism approaches, as outlined in Chaps. 1 and 2. Te demand for housing in inner suburbs has been constrained by a combination of restrictive residential zoning and resident push-back; as a consequence, this infll and densifcation movement has spread into middle suburbs, replete with NIMBY issues, as outlined in Chap. 6. However, no models of redevelopment—much less regeneration—were working in suburban car-based middle and outer suburbs, thwarting any attempt to realise higher ('urban') densities capable of supporting more liveable, self-sufcient, mixed-use, transit-oriented, 20-minute neighbourhoods. Notwithstanding the turn in the stated preferences of large segments of big city populations towards denser urbanism (Chap. 6).

Tus twenty-frst-century urban planning in North American and Australasian cities is failing to curb sprawl and create what communities and markets are seeking in re-urbanisation, as well as what government strategic plans are saying they need. Why is this locked in? Tere are many factors in play, but certainly the lack of a good transport solution to enable a greening of the greyfelds is likely to be a major one.

#### **4 TODs and TACs**

Te need for transit-oriented development (TOD) around rail stations has been well accepted (Calthorpe, 1993; Cervero et al., 2002), and persists as an integral feature of city planning that looks for new ways to simultaneously regenerate both transit and urban development around stations. Te huge international growth in investments in urban rail has enabled a reduction in car dependence, especially when associated with TOD. However, large parts of inner, middle, and outer suburbs remain without quality transit options. Main roads (often created by removal of original tram lines following the end of the Second World War) are now usually heavily congested.

Te need to regenerate both the mobility and land redevelopment along such roads is the next signifcant agenda in transport and urban policy. Te solution suggested in this chapter is regenerating main roads using transit-activated corridors (TACs), which are a combination of providing new road-based transit technology and creating transit-activated GPR around the resulting station precincts. Just as TOD's role was to help transform rail policy relative to its role in urban densifcation around stations, the role of TACs is to help transform road policy. Te similarity lies in the need to integrate quality transit technology with quality precinct-scale land development on, in, and around transit stops, and to include last-mile integration (Fig. 4.1). TACs are thus a corridor created from currently car-oriented activity centres (often represented by ageing shopping strips; https://tract.com.au/rethinkingthestrip/) by linking them with quality mid-tier transit. Te diference is also that TOD projects have primarily been a government initiative, whereas TACs require private-sector engagement in an entrepreneurship role, as they involve considerable urban development, which is usually accomplished by the private sector in accordance with public regulation.

Te key to unlocking transit-activated GPR is that communities love the resulting benefts: they get more than just infll housing; instead, they get a transit service along with other urban services within the transitactivated precinct. Tis is termed 'additionality'—a critical factor enabling transition from NIMBY to YIMBY. Tis is a fundamental factor

**Fig. 4.1** Transit activated corridor. (Source: CRC for Low Carbon Living Guide to Low Carbon Precincts, Thomson et al. (2018)

recognised as missing in recent greyfeld infll and is perhaps a key to how greyfeld precincts can be regenerated. One of the biggest opportunities in these days of attempting to build net-zero cities is that transit-activated GPR provides an integrated model to generate net-zero corridors, as outlined in Fig. 4.1.

Transit-activated GPR is based on a whole-of-corridor approach where land development and transit are integrated from the outset, and it uses private fnance in public-private partnerships to achieve this integration, as well as the technologies outlined in Chap. 3 to introduce distributed infrastructure into precincts. It also needs to draw on a number of the urban planning, design, and engagement processes linked to governments and communities that are the focus of Chap. 7.

#### **5 New Transit and Transit-Activated GPRs**

Te electrifcation of heavy train and tram systems is a mature technology based on overhead catenaries, but new lithium-ion batteries have revolutionised the electrifcation of buses into electric bus rapid transit (BRT) and converting some into trackless trams with smart-city sensors (Newman et al., 2019) that can replace up to the equivalent of six lanes of trafc. Tese readily ft into cities and enable the development of new higher-density residential and mixed-use precincts around transit stops due to their quiet, pollution-free accessibility. As urban development moves to net-zero buildings and infrastructure, this process can be integrated into a transit-activated GPR. Te resultant residential and commercial regeneration can be used to help pay for developing the new transit system (e.g., the associated transit precincts can include recharge hubs for battery-based transit and micro-mobility last-mile linkages). Tey are therefore enabling distributed infrastructure and supporting the development of a zero-carbon city with less automobile congestion on main roads.

Traditional transit along main road corridors has mostly been buses with some trams left over from previous eras, generally in confict with trafc. In more recent times, mid-tier transit—both BRT and light rail transit (LRT)—have increasingly shown that there is a role for road-based transit that occupies a dedicated lane of its own, capable of accommodating the approximate equivalent of six lanes of car trafc (Vuchic, 2005). Increasingly, these systems have improved their service quality (Hidalgo & Muñoz, 2014) through enhanced vehicle guidance, low-foor disability access, and stabilisation of sideways and bumpy movement. However, the arrival of electric battery-powered buses has revolutionised these systems with quieter, emissions-free systems similar to light rail. All of these transit electrifcation projects involving batteries can make transitactivated GPRs part of facilitating climate-change-based transformation to zero-emissions transit and zero-emissions station precincts where the use of renewable energy and recharging technology are built into the station precincts. If developed with a shared micro-grid and smart technologies managed locally, as outlined in Chap. 3, the new net-zero urban development can move out into the surrounding suburb as each adjoining area joins the local system.

Road-based mid-tier transit was given a signifcant boost when a new transit technology was developed that we have called a 'trackless tram' (Newman et al., 2019). Te trackless tram system has taken six innovations from high-speed rail, put them in a carriage bus—or tram-like vehicle—with stabilisation through bogeys and optical guidance systems; this not only makes them largely autonomous (although not completely driverless), but also able to move at speed down a road with the ride quality of a light-rail car. Being electric battery-powered and with no need for steel tracks, it is signifcantly cheaper and easier to implement than a light rail system. It is also much better than traditional BRT at being able to attract urban development around it (new European and Chinese electric buses are showing that they are positively associated with signifcant improvements in urban development (e.g., the new Brisbane Metro; https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/trafc-and-transport/public-transport/ brisbane-metro/about-brisbane-metro). Tese innovations in ride quality and speed, as well as the electric traction now in all three on-road systems, have helped make new transit technology for BRT, LRT, and the trackless tram system much more attractive to urban development partnerships. Te trackless tram is a low-cost option that brings a muchneeded opportunity to create TACs and transit-activated GPRs.

**6 Micro-Mobility and Active Transport in Transit-Activated GPRs**

Micro-mobility devices, including electric bikes, scooters, skateboards, and auto rickshaws, represent ideal ways to enable 'last mile' trip integration with autonomous shuttles and fxed rail to provide integrated mobility-as-a-service for greyfeld precinct residents. New transport options presented by emerging technologies will require new levels of urban design and planning management to enhance station precincts for walkability and to avoid promoting more car-dependent, end-to-end travel (Currie, 2018). Tis should include electric shuttle buses (not necessarily autonomous but certainly on-demand), which can carry people to station precincts (providing frst- and last-mile solutions) without ruining the walkability qualities of the area (Glazebrook & Newman, 2018).

Emerging e-scooter, other on-demand micro-mobility and car-sharing business models may hold the key to reducing car dependence, while reinforcing transit-activated GPR in all its functions. Membership of carsharing services has been shown to reduce vehicle use and car ownership rates (Muheim & Reinhardt, 1999; Becker et al., 2018), which may achieve a balance with demand-based systems like Uber or Lyft and autonomous vehicles that tend to increase car dependence; though solarbased electric would be still contributing to net zero outcomes (Schaller, 2018; Calthorpe & Walters, 2016).

All forms of electro-mobility need recharging. In cities these can become part of a new recharge hub or battery-storage precinct strategically positioned to support the grid balance needed to ensure universal access and resilience. Such recharge hubs are likely to be driven by power utilities paying for the grid services as well as users' refuelling charges. In Canberra 60% of electric-bus recharge power will be obtained from rooftop solar installations at bus depots. Tese recharge services can be made available to the multitude of micro-mobility vehicles in local areas, thus supporting local economies and providing last-mile linkages for electric transit as they service corridors of mixed-use development. Tis integration between electric power and transport delivers net-zero corridors, as outlined below.

Te benefts of micro-mobility in enabling local centres to work with fewer cars and to enable transit systems to work without the need for cardependent corridors has certainly rapidly emerged over the past decades. Transit was seriously damaged during COVID, but so was car trafc, and thus the emergence of the need for and growth of local walkability and active transport has been a global phenomenon, with many cities building this into permanent plans for change (Davies, 2020; Laker, 2020). Electric micro-mobility will be a major part of future greyfeld regeneration.

Te co-benefts of active transport are very high, and if local economic development is facilitated, active transport becomes part of a low-carbon, green growth agenda to redistribute jobs within cities around these new station/precincts (Laker, 2020; Reid, 2020). Re-localising the city like this becomes a strong positive outcome from the move to active transport, with its support from micro-mobility and new electric transit systems as well as the localised power systems emerging from the solar-battery-based infrastructure to further the transformation of a range of urban precincts and town centres. It is a sign that a new policy orientation has emerged from this cluster of innovations, capable of mainstreaming post-COVID, and exemplifed by transit-activated GPR.

## **7 Delivering Transit-Activated GPR**

To convert a main-road corridor into a corridor of transit-activated GPR requires both strategic and statutory planning innovations that are focused on particular corridors and precincts. It also requires signifcant partnership development, a high-quality transit system, the declaration or zoning of the corridor as *primarily for transit and dense urbanism*, and associated high goals for more-sustainable urban development (e.g., netzero and water-sensitive precinct development). Tese are pursued further in later chapters.

A series of plans to integrate movement and place have emerged around the world since Transport for London declared their Street Families policy (Transport for London, 2013), which identifes the streets that give priority to transit and where denser urban development will be given special encouragement. Te Movement and Place framework developed by VicRoads (https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/trafc-and-road-use/ trafc-management/movement-and-place) has gained traction by asserting that streets are not only about moving people from A to B, but in many contexts also acting as places for people and public life to thrive (Jones et al., 2008). All Australian states are now following this model.

A planning and procurement process could enable the redevelopment of a corridor with a mid-tier transit system that enabled higher-density, mixed-use redevelopment along the corridor and a subsequent increase in land values. Developers could be chosen for each station based on their bids to deliver integrated higher-density development around each station that is walkable and contains all the distributed infrastructure outlined in Chap. 3 and the nature-based solutions from Chap. 5. Te central part of this would be a micro-grid that can manage the distributed energy generated from rooftop solar installations and would be critical to managing recharge of all electric vehicles in the area (as well as the transit if necessary); the implementation of the micro-grid would include working with utility managers to provide grid services for back-up and stability (electric vehicles have substantial capacity for stabilising grids based on renewable energy sources). As greyfeld regeneration happens in the station precincts, micro-grids can act as micro-utilities that provide netzero networks to new redevelopments in ageing adjacent suburbs. Te distributed net-zero city would thus emerge.

Enabling TACs would necessarily require multi-purpose governance along the corridor. Tis could come from a consortium of local governments, property developers, and utilities seeing opportunities requiring a shift from traditional dedicated 'specialist' services to a partnership model. Te partnership would have responsibility for delivering urban regeneration and next-generation, networked transit, energy, and water services. For example, roads chosen for this category would shift their priority from providing mobility services for 'through trafc' to enabling quality regenerative urban design and development and urban network services delivery (mobility, energy, and water) along the designated corridor. Tis would deliver value to both developers and resident communities.

# **8 Conclusion**

Tis chapter suggests that one pathway for greening the greyfelds is to build new precincts in a chain along a transit-activated corridor to create a string of transit-activated GPRs. Tis era of technological advancement is developing systems that work best at a precinct scale, like solar power, batteries, and new small-scale water and waste systems, but they work particularly well if a row of precincts is linked by new local electric transit and micro-mobility systems. Most importantly, the necessary uplift in value that can release the funding or fnancing of a series of net-zero urban regeneration projects that seek to implement such new technologies will only happen if there is a strong and competitive new-technology transit system feeding residents, workers, and visitors to the precinct. Each precinct will therefore be an opportunity to show how new technology can be used and, most importantly, how the precinct can link into the new-technology transit system.

**Fig. 4.2** Future transit-activated precinct. (Source: City of Canning)

Each of the regenerating greyfeld precincts will need to have a station with potential to recharge transit, micro-mobility, and private electric vehicles, and a built environment that collects solar energy and incorporates other distributed infrastructure. Te whole corridor can be part of an integrated local-metropolitan power system that ultimately spreads across the whole city.

A future city with a network of transit-activated GPRs across most parts of the city and a series of localised centres around stations would begin to look like the precinct illustrated in Fig. 4.2 and the city illustrated in Fig. 1.1, with the various urban fabrics now flled out by a series of new, twenty-frst-century boulevards and dense urbanism, providing an enhanced structure for the suburbs that these boulevards traverse.

#### **References**


**Open Access** Tis chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.

Te images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# **5**

# **Climate Resilience and Regeneration: How Precincts Can Adapt to and Mitigate Climate Change**

## **1 Introduction**

Cities are designed landscapes. Human settlements are typically sited based on natural endowments such as bioregional context, topography, hydrology, and soils, but as the city grows, the artifcial subsumes the natural. In response to the overcrowded and unhealthy working conditions of the industrial era, modernist notions of urban design from the late nineteenth to the late twentieth century encouraged a low-density spread of cities to make space for fresh air and gardens. Te rise of the car enabled sprawling garden suburbs to spread out across vast hinterlands, ultimately leading to increasingly dysfunctional cities (as described in earlier chapters). Tere has been increasing call for more compact and sustainable cities, leading to the need for higher-density regenerative redevelopment in both brownfelds and greyfelds. Tis chapter examines whether it is possible to not only densify greyfelds, as outlined in the model in this book, but to do it in a way that regenerates the natural qualities of the areas being developed—to improve liveability and to build resilience to climate change.

Urban regeneration can retroft sprawl to deliver denser urban environments with potential benefts for residents, but contemporary infll development erodes the suburban qualities of open space and greenery that the early Modernists sought to provide. Poorly designed infll degrades the natural qualities of the typically leafy greyfelds suburbs. Fragmented knock-down-rebuild infll is resulting in a signifcant loss of gardens and canopy trees, and simply creates more hard surfaces without a great deal of density. Residents generally are upset at the loss of multiple benefts associated with the natural qualities of the suburbs. But there are ways to design compact urban areas with nature in mind, and there have been examples of this over the centuries. Yet, most major Australian metropolitan planning schemes support infll as small-lot subdivision with an emphasis on aspects other than urban green space, so it is not unexpected to fnd that the redevelopment of greyfelds has come to represent a loss of natural qualities. It is only recently, as governments around the world have recognised the critical role that urban nature can play in climatechange mitigation and climate adaptation, that there has been a surge of urban-planning interest to include nature more explicitly in future city redevelopment. Te question is: how?

Tis chapter describes risks and opportunities climate change presents to urban areas and how nature-based solutions can support GPR, particularly place-activated GPR, to minimise climate vulnerability while maximising liveability.

## **2 Metropolitan Climate Projections and Bioregional Considerations**

Climate-change projections (e.g., those from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Australia's Bureau of Meteorology) indicate an increasing incidence of extreme climatic conditions across the globe (and Australia) related to increased temperatures, episodes of drought and fooding, bushfres of increased intensity, sea-level rise, exacerbated by storm surges and coastal erosion. In Australia, most population growth is expected to occur in the cities of Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, and Perth, all located in the southern half of the continent, which is projected to experience longer, dryer, hotter summers and reduced rainfall. Australia is already witnessing these impacts (Norman et al., 2021).

Perhaps the biggest impact is likely to be increased urban heat, especially the extremes that persist during heat waves that intensify urban heat islands, resulting in more deaths than any other natural hazard (Newton et al., 2018). Projections indicate that temperatures above 40 °C will become more common in the decades ahead (Table 5.1). For example, in Perth the number of days over 40 degrees is projected to increase by 50% compared to their rate of occurrence in the late twentieth century, and to be around fve times more frequent in 2090 under the high emissions projections.

Indeed, in January 2020, Penrith, in western Sydney, reached 48.9° and was the hottest place on earth that day. Te reality is that all Australian cities are moving in this direction. Climate adaptation is going to need to be embedded in all future urban development, whether it is in central city areas, new areas on the urban fringe, or greyfeld areas. Tus, this chapter sets out the key features of adaptation.

## **3 Climate-Adaptation Strategies**

Te recent spate of highly damaging extreme events experienced by Australians in recent times—heatwaves, bushfres, droughts, fooding, and coastal erosion—illustrate the threat multipliers of climate change (Newton et al., 2018) and are demonstrating to the nation's population as never before the severity of such shocks to built environments and human well-being. Te impacts of climate change have been the focus of increased applied research by major national research centres and networks this century, exploring policy and planning interventions capable of realising transformative mitigation and adaptation pathways. Tese include: green urbanism (refer to 100 Resilient Cities network; Fastenrath et al., 2019); options to manage sea-level rise (refer to National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility; Norman, 2016); and urban cooling and local food mitigation (refer to CRC for Water Sensitive Cities


**Table 5.1** Metropolitan urban heat projections

**108**

and CRC for Low Carbon Living; Newton & Rogers, 2020). Te frst sector to undertake the necessary detailed risk assessment of climatechange impacts on Australia's settlement system was the insurance industry. Tis represented a major transition over the past 20 years from an exclusive reliance on actuaries and data from historical events to a forward-looking approach that embraced climate science, spatial science, and mathematical modelling. Te result has been a detailed small-scale risk-assessment mapping of neighbourhoods across all cities and towns in Australia in relation to properties that are likely to become uninsurable. Such addresses are forecast to rise tenfold in Adelaide between 2019 and 2100 and fvefold in Newcastle and Sydney; and on the Gold Coast by the end of the century one in six properties will be uninsurable (ABC, 2020).

At present, governments tend to maintain a largely reactive disastermanagement stance to extreme events. Tis needs to transition to proactive strategies involving climate-adaption planning and redesign of vulnerable urban landscapes. A high proportion of these will be in greyfelds. Here, increasing pressure will be applied by industries, workplaces, and residents located in at-risk areas for governments to ensure that future urban development responds to a new set of urban-design principles. Planning intervention at a precinct scale—such as GPR—will enable such a sustainablity transition to occur.

#### **3.1 Benefts of Urban Nature**

Despite there being numerous benefts to incorporating nature into urban areas, most planning regulations emphasise the built form over urban nature, whereby urban open space becomes increasingly dominated by concrete, asphalt, and other hardscapes. A major challenge is where and how to (re)integrate nature into cities, especially in large and densely developed cities where little space can be found; justifying the preservation of urban nature may be difcult because pressure is high for other land uses (e.g., a greater supply of afordable housing, parking, or additional commercial buildings required for local job creation in the suburbs). Te gradual loss of urban nature in infll areas is insidious, but not inevitable. It is a question of design. Numerous approaches emphasise the design of nature into the city (Frantzeskaki 2020); key concepts are summarised in Box 5.1, which can all be quantifed for climateadaptation risk assessment.

#### **Box 5.1 Urban Nature Terminology**

*Ecosystem services* are the benefits humans obtain from nature. There are many such 'services', such as flood mitigation, urban cooling, nutrient cycling, pollution removal, and food production. Preserving, maintaining, and regenerating nature within cities through an appropriate landscape structure can maximise these low-cost, high-benefit ecosystem services (Breuste et al., 2020). The integration of ecosystem services in the city is often referred to as green and blue infrastructure.

*Green and blue infrastructure*: within cities includes a range of urban natural assets, representing a counterpoint to the 'grey infrastructure' of roads, buildings, car parks, and other impervious surfaces that cover large areas of industrial cities of the modern era. 'Green' assets include trees, parks, and gardens, while 'blue' assets include elements of water-sensitive urban design (WSUD), such as rain gardens, remediation of local creeks and drainage channels, and stormwater capture and storage in swales and retention ponds (Victoria State Government, 2017). Collectively, networks of green and blue infrastructure can improve environmental conditions and residents' quality of life.

*Biophilia and biophilic urbanism*: Biophilia was defined by Wilson (1984) as 'the innate tendency to focus on life and lifelike processes'. Biophilic urbanism has become a major social movement within city policy and practice centred on integration of, and access to, nature in and on buildings, not just between them, for both the ecosystem services it offers and the psycho-social benefits it provides (Beatley, 2011). Biophilic urbanism is quantified in Soderlund and Newman (2015).

*Nature-based services/solutions* is a more recent term introduced by the World Bank (MacKinnon et al., 2008). It has a broad and inclusive range of actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore multiple ecosystem services as a means to create resilience to climate change in cities, and thus reduce negative impacts on health and well-being (Elmqvist et al., 2019).

This chapter will use 'nature-based solutions' as an umbrella term for designed and managed urban nature that provides human well-being and biodiversity benefits within an established urban arena such as greyfields.

#### **3.2 Planning for Urban Nature-Based Solutions**

Tis book, along with many other planning sources, highlights the benefts that compact city design ofers for urban sustainability. However, a compact city agenda creates a dilemma in that higher-density development afects and often replaces green space. Te squeezing out of urban nature, particularly the loss of greenery on private property in greyfelds suburbs through recent urban intensifcation, has been extensive, although redeveloped inner areas have at the same time become greener in their public spaces, especially in wealthier suburbs. Tus, it is possible to design a greater level of greening into greyfelds using both public and private spaces. If this is not achieved, the city may continue to spiral down in its greening and the demand for prime greenfeld land will continue unabated. Increasingly, innovative designers are fnding ways to integrate urban greenery into high-density areas, and the possibility for green infrastructure to grow not just between buildings, but upon and over them is now evident. But how? Section 4 of this chapter discusses planning for urban nature that can at the same time be planning for urban density (Tomson & Newman, 2021).

Natural systems are not constrained by administrative boundaries such as property title, neighbourhood, municipality, or even city, and thus they should not be considered at these fragmented levels. Natural systems must be considered at a range of scales—macro (city, catchment), meso (municipality, precinct), and site (individual lot)—that work toward the creation of a connected city-wide green and blue infrastructure network.

Climate adaptation for sea-level rise, fooding events, and bushfres need to be dealt with at national- and local-scale planning (Norman et al., 2021), but may be considered at the level of smaller hydrological subsystems: watershed (catchment), aquifer, or site. Trees can form vast forests, but in the city context a patch of trees may form a small ecology of its own or contribute to an ecological corridor of linked sites across a city. Planning for urban nature requires (eco-)systems thinking. Each of these scales has a relationship to urban planning:


Although the macro and meso scales are predominantly shaped by policy planners, at the micro scale most decisions are made by developers and designers, who can organise a site to design nature either in or out; therefore, this scale is most relevant to GPR. Australian cities are witnessing considerable piecemeal infll development involving a miriad of micro-scale decisions, all of which are currently accommodated within existing building and planning regulations. Te result is small-lot subdivision that typically leads to incremental displacement and disruption of natural assets. However, planning mechanisms can be employed to ensure that each of the micro-scale decisions work toward the incremental improvement of urban nature. Local government development assessment instruments and capabilities are critical here: but remain under resourced due to vertical fscal imbalance in Australia's system of government (Tomlinson & Spiller 2018).

## **4 Integrating Nature-Based Solutions at the Precinct Scale**

### **4.1 Water**

In a drier climate, water scarcity will become an increasing problem for some cities. But the demand for potable water can be greatly reduced through water-efciency measures as well as water harvesting from rainwater and stormwater collection, and recycling wastewater. All of these water sources can be used to help regenerate aquifers and water bodies in the bioregion. In fact, the whole city can be *designed as a catchment*. Rather than expel water through concrete channels and pipes (grey infrastructure) to the sea, water sensitive urban design (WSUD) seeks ways to funnel and manage stormwater fows to the beneft of the city. WSUD aims to balance urban water fows with natural water fows that existed before urban development. In the hot, dry climate experienced across much of Australia, WSUD may include strategies to hold water (e.g., in wetlands and detention basins) for future uses such as irrigation; or through swales, rain gardens, sumps, and other passive water-retention techniques to slow the rate of runof, thus reducing urban food risk while also recharging soil moisture and deeper aquifers. Tis is the *sponge city* concept.

Many of these techniques are best achieved at the regional scale; however, it is possible to design-in on-site measures that replicate these approaches at the smaller scale, such as 'deep-soil' gardens or green roofs to absorb rainfall at source or small-scale water detention (e.g., rainwater tanks) or greywater treatment. For these reasons it is advantageous to (i) ensure integrated site design that includes WSUD measures, (ii) amalgamate lots to enable greater potential for accommodating WSUD features and to ameliorate the cost over a larger number of dwellings, and (iii) consider developer bonuses for on-site WSUD to incentivise developer-led responses and to reduce public costs on engineering work to address stormwater fows from infll developments.

Site-scale decisions when extrapolated to the city scale have major impacts, either positive or negative, on urban nature. Using the methodology developed by the CRC for Water-Sensitive Cities Urban Infll

**Fig. 5.1** Water-sensitive infll development for small-scale precincts. (Source: Renouf & Sochacka, 2018; London et al., 2020)

Integrated Research Project (Renouf et al., 2020; Renouf & Sochacka, 2018), it is now possible to quantitatively assess the nature-based impact of new urban-development projects on key landscape features such as surface imperviousness, groundwater infltration, stormwater runof, changes in green space and canopy tree coverage, evapotranspiration, and urban heating. Figure 5.1 shows various outcomes for business-as-usual infll versus water-sensitive infll, with signifcant diferences in outcome resulting from diferent site arrangement of buildings, carparking, driveways, and setbacks. More coordinated place-activated GPR approaches can deliver a high site yield *and* larger areas of green space, while small-lot subdivision with larger building footprints, setbacks on all sides, and large driveways and garages may satisfy minimum planning open-space requirements, yet remove almost all urban nature on private plots. Municipalities are increasingly left to address nature-based solution defcits on limited public land with limited public funds. A good, welldesigned place-activated GPR will have spaces on-site where green-blue infrastructure can enable multiple benefts. Nature-based assessments of urban infll are currently missing from local government developmentassessment processes but are applied for the frst time in a case study in Chap. 7 to illustrate the regenerative benefts of precinct-scale redevelopment compared to historical and current business-as-usual small-lot subdivision development.

#### **4.2 Urban Heat**

In urban environments, building materials like concrete, bitumen, and metal with high thermal mass absorb heat; pavements and rooftops can also absorb heat to varying degrees (e.g., a dark- versus light-coloured roof). Tis solar gain combined with the generation of heat within the city itself from sources such as car exhaust and air conditioning tends to result in greater heat than in the surrounding non-urban environments. Tis can be readily revealed through extensive urban heat mapping now commonly undertaken as part of strategic municipal land-use planning (Ding et al., 2020). Tis 'urban heat island' efect is exacerbated by global warming, and studies across the world's major cities show that an urban heat island increases city temperatures between 2 °C and 12 °C compared to their rural surroundings (Osmond & Sharif, 2017).

Urban heat can be reduced through a range of methods such as: (a) high albedo, refective surfaces (e.g., the Queensland city of Townsville reduced the average air conditioning load by 10% over a decade when they issued a regulation requiring that all roofs be white); and (b) urban greening, which both shades surfaces that otherwise absorb heat (such as concrete and roads) and actively cools through evapo-transpiration. Te cooling efect of greenery increases with canopy cover and vegetation type. Osmond and Sharif (2017) identify a range of urban cooling strategies for precincts (Fig. 5.2):

**Fig. 5.2** Cooling strategies for urban precincts during summer. (Source: Osmond & Sharif, 2017)


Buildings also need to play their part, both individually and as positioned within a precinct, to optimise solar access, shading, and natural ventilation. CSIRO has developed the Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme software (NatHERS) for assessing the thermal design performance of residential buildings, which is now mandated in the Building Code of Australia and currently set at a minimum of six-star performance (amount of artifcial heating and cooling required to keep temperatures inside a dwelling within a comfortable range). Designs capable of attaining seven or more stars are readily available (https://www.nathers.gov.au/ owners-and-builders/7-star-house-plans), and when combined with solar photovoltaic power enable transition to zero-emission dwellings (Deng & Newton, 2017). Tese are design principles employed in the case study precinct design and assessment featured in Chap. 7.

#### **4.3 Urban Vegetation**

Vegetation loss as a result of urban infll is a major problem in Australian cities (Hurley et al., 2020). To counteract vegetation loss on private land, many councils are looking to maximise planting in the public realm. Dense and layered tree and shrub planting along streets can help increase shading, air purifcation, cooling, and noise reduction and slow the rate and speed of stormwater runof to reduce urban food risk. Tree-canopy targets are usually the central focus for urban-greening or urban-forest strategies. Te City of Melbourne, for example, has a target of 40% canopy cover on public land by 2040 (Croeser et al., 2020). Planting guidelines can specify climate-appropriate vegetation to reduce future maintenance needs and reduce irrigation demand.

In precinct-scale developments, site layout can help fnd space for gardens by requiring some building setbacks (most likely rear setbacks), and planning can mandate space for trees on private land through development controls such as deep soil zones (cf. NSW SEPP 65). Larger sites allow greater fexibility for site planning so that building and grey infrastructure can be arranged to maximise on-site green infrastructure. Precinct regeneration on larger sites ideally provides opportunity for a redistribution of street space to green space and reactivation for resident use (Chap. 7). For example, WGV Perth set targets for the infll development to match the tree-canopy coverage measured at the former school and playing grounds prior to the redevelopment in 2014. WGV set a tree-canopy target across the development site of 30% at 15 years postconstruction, with a tree-canopy diameter of 6 m (Byrne et al., 2020). In denser urban areas, such as those where transit-activated GPR is appropriate, it is also possible for urban greenery to be integrated on, in, and over built structures; for example, as integrated greenwalls and green roofs that serve as biophilic facades on buildings (Newman, 2014; Tomson & Newman, 2021).

#### **5 Conclusion**

Climate projections ofer planners increased clarity about potential risks of climate change, and consequently what impacts to plan for. Integrated design that is central to place-activated and transit-activated GPR needs to incorporate nature-based solutions to increase not only livability, but also resilience to climate change. Te many nature-based solutions identifed in this chapter are an afordable insurance policy against climate shocks that also help create more attractive, more valuable, more biodiverse, and more sustainable communities. Te IPSOS (2020) survey closest to the time of the Australian bushfres revealed that environmental concerns had risen to be the top issue among Australia's population wanting action on climate change. Place-activated greening of the greyfelds needs to be innovative in improving urban infll through regenerating precincts in relation to better urban design densities *and* better natural urban environment qualities.

## **References**


**Open Access** Tis chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.

Te images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# **6**

# **Changing Attitudes to Housing and Residential Location in Cities: The Cultural Clash and the Greyfeld Solution**

# **1 Introduction**

Te evolution of Australia's urban residential fabric for much of the twentieth century was characterised by suburbanisation: continuous centrifugal expansion of the city in rings of low-density housing in greenfeld estates on the urban fringe. Tis has led to population densities of the fve largest capital cities as amongst the lowest in the world (Loader, 2016). Underpinning this pattern of residential development, especially for the latter half of the twentieth century, was a regime comprising a conventional, risk-averse residential-property industry, frmly tied to a greenfeld model, aligned to metropolitan governments' continued support of 'suburban city' planning strategies and an auto industry that promoted cardependent urban sprawl. Greenfeld developments ofered households afordable access to house-and-land packages with private front- and backyards in a 'garden city' environment. Tis constituted the Australian dream, especially for the traditional nuclear family of that era. A review of housing-preference studies undertaken up to the early 1990s confrms this, with all published surveys showing that approximately 90% of all capital-city residents consistently nominated detached housing as the favoured dwelling type (Wulf, 1993).

Late-twentieth-century forces were challenging the sustainability of continued urban sprawl as a means of accommodating population growth. Signifcant shifts in demographics, lifestyles, and urban economics were signalling a need to reconsider how cities were being planned, with increasing calls for urban consolidation, more-compact cities, and greater variety in housing provision (Newman & Kenworthy, 1999; Newton, 2000). Gentrifcation of low-priced inner-city residential property had begun in the late 1970s, initiated by households who preferred an 'urban' living environment, marking the beginning of the end for inner-city depopulation (Newton & Tomson, 2017). Signifcant reurbanisation and densifcation of the inner suburbs was to follow. Similar patterns happened in all automobile-dependent cities across the world, particularly in the twenty-frst century as knowledge-economy jobs and more-urban environments became valued for their higher residential amenity and accessibility (Brotchie et al., 1987; Newman & Kenworthy, 2015; Florida, 2010).

As these inner suburbs gentrifed, the existing residents opposed the changes in and densifcation of their neighbourhoods (Huxley, 2001), leading to the formation of 'Save our Suburbs' movements involving local communities banding together to resist what they considered 'overdevelopment' and urban designs that changed 'neighbourhood character'. Transitioning from suburban to urban fabrics via more intensive forms of urban infll represented a challenge to residents of established, more accessible suburbs to share their higher amenity space. During this period, housing in Australia's largest cities was also becoming increasingly unafordable, and research indicated that an increasing proportion of residents surveyed by the Grattan Institute in Sydney and Melbourne, where property prices were highest, indicated they would prefer living in medium-density housing (Kelly et al., 2011). Results from this study (Table 6.1) show that from a preferences perspective, 40% of Sydney respondents and 38% of those from Melbourne favoured mediumdensity housing; if high-density housing is included, the preference for density goes up to 60% in Sydney and 52% in Melbourne. For most of the twentieth-century, household surveys showed that preferences for


**Table 6.1** Dwelling preferences versus existing dwelling stock—Sydney and Melbourne

Source: Extracted from Kelly et al. (2011)

higher density living rarely approached 20% (Wulf, 1993). Tis is a remarkable change in urban culture in Australia and a huge political dilemma in the planning profession, as all the strategic-planning documents began to recognise this signifcant increase in demand for wellplaced density, but the planning systems of control did not allow the demand to be met. Te conservative property development and building and construction industries were also slow to respond to these shifts in preferences, a fact refected in major lags in supply of medium-density dwellings (Kelly 2011; Kelly et al., 2011; Newton et al., 2017; again, see Fig. 1.2).

Tis chapter seeks to clarify the clash of attitudes and values that has emerged in Australian cities in relation to housing, and to fnd a solution through regenerative urban redevelopment of the middle suburbs.

## **2 Greening the Greyfelds Survey**

Tis section examines the responses to a September 2016 online survey of 2000 residents living in Sydney and Melbourne to a range of housing issues associated with the *Greening the Greyfelds* project (see Newton et al., 2017 for more details of the survey). Te focus of the survey was on understanding trends in community attitudes towards medium-density living and neighbourhood change (intensifcation) in an attempt to understand the clash in cultures outlined above, which is reducing the opportunities for urban regeneration and perpetuating urban sprawl.

### **2.1 Stated Preferences for Dwelling Type and Preferred 'Living Arrangement'**

In response to a question posed to those households who indicated that they were likely to move residence within the next 15 years ('What type of dwelling would you want to live in?'), Table 6.2 shows that close to 60% of residents in both Sydney and Melbourne favoured a detached house and yard. In the space of 30 years (approximately one generation), there has been a signifcant attitude shift in (unconstrained) housing preferences—towards embracing higher-density forms of living.

While there are overlapping demographics across the housing typologies, those with a stronger preference for medium-density housing tended to be older (>60), in smaller households, living alone or with adult children, favouring a smaller dwelling, and looking to relocate within the same locality they currently live in. Tose looking to move into an apartment also revealed a distinctive demographic: either younger (under 30) or older (over 60), more likely to be currently renting, in a small, singleperson household or living with other adults, and with a preference for inner-city living and close to a park that can be used regularly. Tese data


**Table 6.2** Preferred type of future dwelling for households indicating a plan to move within next 15 years


**Table 6.3** Preference for urban living arrangements

began to reveal what was motivating this cultural shift towards density. A further set of questions enabled more insight.

Living arrangements were examined to see how much they extended beyond the dwelling to include the neighbourhood and wider (sub)urban context in which people lived. Tree distinctive living arrangements were explored (Table 6.3). Responses revealed that combining locational context with housing type signifcantly boosted preference for mediumdensity housing when situated in established suburbs well served by public transport and accessible to jobs and services: 46%—equivalent to the level of stated preference for a residential property comprising a separate dwelling with garden and dependent on access to a private car.

Te data from this part of the survey indicated that people are more readily attracted towards a more 'urban' housing environment if they are given a sense that the additionality of living there is signifcant. Tis additionality is well understood in housing-preference literature and forms the basis for comprehending urban housing markets. A survey in Perth of households who had bought into apartments showed that many had done so because of the sustainability benefts in the housing itself (increasingly being marketed) and in the lifestyles they could now live without car-dependence (Green & Newman, 2017). COVID-19 has highlighted the increased importance of 'localism' and 'additionality' in relation to neighbourhood amenity and services.

## **2.2 Exploring NIMBYism: Resident Perspectives on Neighbourhood Densifcation and Change**

Te question is whether these shifts in dwelling preference have been refected in residents' attitudes towards change in the built environments in their neighbourhoods. Seventy-one percent of the total sample of respondents (*N* = 1983) were 'aware of neighbourhood change in their locality', a percentage that was identical for the property owners (*N* = 1402) who were no more or no less sensitized to local urban change than renters. For the remainder of the analyses, focus centres on the property owner group since they constitute those residents capable of driving precinct-scale citizen-endorsed or initiated regeneration.

Table 6.4 reveals a high level of consistency in Sydney and Melbourne residents' attitudes to neighbourhood change that is associated with an increase in residential density. Less than 10% of residents in both cities considered it a good thing, but almost 40% responded that they


**Table 6.4** Attitude to neighbourhood change

understood that it must happen, and just over 10% were neutral. Preference for less or no change sat around 45%. Tis suggests that there is a capacity to accept change, but at present it is grudging and not strongly endorsed or embraced. NIMBYism remains a barrier to urban redevelopment.

Tere are interesting demographic diferences between those households who thought change is a good thing or understand it has to happen and those who were neutral or preferred no change. Te former group tended to be younger, recent movers into the locality, more likely to be renters, in predominantly adult only households, and more likely to have plans to move in the next few years, and to prefer inner-city locations. A review of community resistance in the Australian property-redevelopment context (Newton et al., 2020) indicates it has not moved much beyond a focus on individual project sites, and thus the literature has assumed that community resistance comes primarily from site-specifc issues, which is not always the case. Often the externalities associated with a project (i.e., its impacts on local infrastructure, services, trafc, safety, and environment) are what raise the most objections. Tis suggests that the narrative for change and the benefts that well-designed regenerative development can bring to a suburb and its residents need to be better communicated to the stereotypical property-owning suburban households who prefer less development in their neighbourhoods. Demonstrating the additionality of GPR and communicating this to residents is the focus for Chap. 7.

#### **2.3 Exploring YIMBYism: Perspectives on Resident-led Residential Redevelopment**

Te next 'planning for change' stage in the survey probed the extent to which property owners contemplating a future move were aware of or open to options of selling as a consortium of neighbours—becoming key actors in resident-enabled regenerative urban redevelopment. While not commonplace, examples of this are being reported together with the value uplift they achieve (Fig. 6.1). Te survey revealed that one-quarter of Sydney respondents were open to consolidating property for sale with neighbours; this fgure was even higher (39%) for property they owned as an investment (Table 6.5).

**Fig. 6.1** Citizen-led lot consolidation in the suburban greyfelds. (Source: Compiled by authors)



Several reports on negative community reaction to development include recommendations on overcoming resistance, such as positively framing developments for well-being (Holden, 2019), focusing on the local issues and local benefts (Petrova, 2014), and relying far more on the informal community structures than the formal municipal communications pathways in gaining community acceptance (Scally & Tighe, 2015). Tese indicate the necessity to move beyond the current development proposal/complaint system, but are still not developed to the point where they can be readily and efectively implemented as YIMBY methods of practice. Engaging with residents, unpacking their views about the needs of a given locality, and introducing forms of additionality into a precinct can signifcantly reduce negative reaction to project proposals, and may even lead to support for development (Woodcock et al., 2016). Tis process is also far more likely to be supported by councillors and political stakeholders, as development purely for yield is typically not openly supported, but developments that satisfy both the community and municipal policy are. Consequently, demonstration of precinct additionality is a near necessity for scaled-up, medium-density construction in greyfelds.

Tere would appear to be a capacity gap here: a defcit of trusted and qualifed brokers capable of engaging greyfeld residents with the appropriate fnancial and legal instruments necessary to progress 'kitchen table' discussions through to a positive outcome. Tis is rarely part of the business model in real-estate agencies, local government, or among property and construction companies.

## **3 Meshing Housing Life Cycle and Household Life Cycle Analyses: A Step Towards Realising GPR**

Te data from the above surveys show there is signifcant potential for urban regeneration at scale in greyfelds, and that piecemeal knock-downrebuild of detached houses is not going to make the diference needed for creating the additionality required to achieve better public transport and better urbanism like that found in inner city walking and transit fabrics. So how can this be enabled?

As outlined in Chap. 1, greyfelds are areas within cities with a high percentage of residential properties that have reached or are rapidly approaching the end of their life cycle *and are currently occupied*. Te fact that they are occupied by diferent property owners represents a barrier to any straightforward lot-assembly process. A signifcant percentage of greyfeld properties are also occupied by older residents (over the age of 55)—a cohort of the Australian population that is expected to double from 5.2 million (2012) to 14.1 million in 2062 (James et al., 2019). It is also a cohort that is confronting the need to consider their future residential and locational options. Over 60% of this age cohort are owner-occupiers (63% for 55–59, rising to 72% for 75–79; Whelan et al., 2019).

Tese facts provide a range of options for people in the middle suburbs: age in place, move to a retirement village, or downsize/rightsize to owning a smaller medium-density property or high-rise apartment. Several recent studies from the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI), such as those listed above and James et al. (2020), point to the multiple barriers to be overcome, prime among them being the fnancial cost of moving, but also a signifcant lack of coordinated and trusted information on seniors' housing options. Tere is a need to bring the information about housing options to those who are now facing the need to make some choices. Te option of participating in GPR is never one of these unless particular residents in a neighbourhood such as featured in the stories in Fig. 6.1 are moved to participate in a lot-amalgamation initiative and create the option for a larger-scale redevelopment.

Urban planning at local and state government level needs to become more proactive in this space at both strategic and statutory levels. At a strategic planning level, bivariate spatial analyses of greyfeld residential tracts demonstrating a combination of high redevelopment potential and high percentage of population over 55 years of age will highlight precincts where rezoning for GPR could have the best prospects (Fig. 6.2). At a statutory level, there needs to be realisation of community additionality for precinct-scale redevelopment if GPR is to be realised.

# **4 Conclusion**

Tis chapter has shown that a major cultural shift is occurring in Australian cities, with over 50% of households now preferring to live in a more urban, amenity-rich location. Te reason an increasing number of residents in Australian cities are primed and ready to move into higher-density living environments appears to be because they are increasingly embracing

**Fig. 6.2** Locating high residential redevelopment potential and high percentage of population aged over 55 in the (largely greyfeld) City of Maroondah, Victoria. (Source: Derived by authors from Victorian Government spatial data)

an 'urban' rather than 'suburban' culture and lifestyle. Te reality is, however, that the processes that are likely to enable this transition are simply not in place, as the inner suburbs are now beyond the means of most, unless high-density apartment living becomes the option. GPR in the middle suburbs represents a solution to providing the sought-after medium-density housing supply and amenity provision—in the right places. As Kelly et al. (2011, p. 2) have argued: 'We should not be afraid to shape our cities: otherwise we will risk them shaping us. But we should shape them in accordance with what Australians say they would choose'.

## **References**

Brotchie, J., Hall, P., & Newton, P. W. (1987). Te transition to an information society. In J. F. Brotchie, P. Hall, & P. W. Newton (Eds.), *Te spatial impact of technological change* (pp. 435–451). Croom Helm and Methuen.


**Open Access** Tis chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.

Te images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# **7**

# **Planning, Design, Assessment, and Engagement Processes for Greyfeld Precinct Regeneration**

# **1 A Framework for Smart Regenerative Urban Development at Precinct Scale**

Previous chapters have shown that delivering more-sustainable regenerative development increases in complexity as urban scale increases and as focus shifts to redeveloping existing urban fabrics, especially greyfelds (Fig. 7.1). Here, key objectives relate to *jointly* increasing the supply of medium-density housing, retroftting urban infrastructures (energy, water, mobility, and waste management) to make them distributed, lowcarbon, and regenerative, increasing the mix of residential and commercial land uses to create neighbourhoods that are more productive and liveable, and greening streetscapes by redistributing and reconfguring land previously allocated to automobile use for nature-based services to accommodate pressures from climate change and densifying suburbs. We have called the integration of these urban performance factors greyfeld precinct regeneration. Its goals are set out in Table 7.1 as a list of urbandesign objectives.

Tere is a critical relationship between all the elements in the precinct design and assessment process (Fig. 7.2). Te ability to positively

**Fig. 7.1** Urban arenas and scale of urban redevelopment. (Source: Adapted from Thomson, 2016)

infuence the cost and performance of a precinct design project is always highest at the front end, in the concept-design-feasibility stages, a period during which information to aid decision-making in a timely manner has proven more difcult to assemble. It is for this reason that increasing attention is being paid to new processes, instruments, and platforms that can be introduced for smarter precinct planning and design at concept and design phase (Newton & Taylor, 2019) to address the assessment defcit that currently exists for urban-design practitioners in both private and public sectors (but local government development assessment in


**Table 7.1** Dimensions of urban performance requiring a precinct planning and design response

(*continued*)


**Table 7.1** (continued)

Source: Adapted from Newton (2019)

**Fig. 7.2** Key processes underpinning greyfelds precinct regeneration. (Source: Newton, 2019)

particular). Tey enable more rapid and iterative assessment of precinct design performance (against objectives) to assess economic feasibility as well as present proof of the additionality that the project delivers to local government and community residents. Both are critical to the GPR model of redevelopment.

#### **7 Planning, Design, Assessment, and Engagement Processes…**

Regenerative redevelopment in the greyfelds requires land assembly and the greater potential for additionality that a larger site allows. Most redevelopment to date in established suburbs has been small-scale, fragmented, speculative knock-down-rebuild where a single site is purchased and 1:1–4 new dwelling units built on the block in conformance with existing local government building and planning regulations. Residential development in the middle suburbs of Australian cities has typically created lots ranging in size between 400 m2 and 800 m2 (average 600 m2 ), with the original dwelling occupying approximately a third of this space, the rest being permeable open space and driveways/parking spaces. Housing redevelopment outcomes for small-lot subdivision vary slightly in terms of both dwelling outcomes and site layout (Table 7.2). Te small-lot subdivision model has proven to be economically viable and highly replicable, but it does not contribute sufciently to greyfeld net infll housing supply or enable urban redevelopment at a scale and density that can efectively reshape and regenerate low-density suburbia and contribute to broader urban development goals, such as delivering environmentally sustainable outcomes for the future of Australia's fastgrowing cities.

An alternative approach to land assembly at a larger (precinct) scale is required in greyfelds. Locally organised housing development models driven by a 'group of individuals acting together on the basis of shared interest' (Crabtree, 2018) have emerged in Australia and internationally (Palmer, 2020; Sharam, 2016). Tey take various forms but are typically led by a 'developer' who aggregates demand for a medium-high-density housing project, enabling a site to be secured and design to be commenced following engagement with local government. Recruitment of participants is unconstrained spatially and is speculative. Getting such projects of the ground has proven difcult, especially those associated with attempts to deliver more socially and environmentally responsive medium-density housing aligned with local government strategic development plans and design guides that require increased levels of sustainability performance (https://nightingalehousing.org/).

GPR is a variant of locally organised housing development models to the extent that it is likely to be a municipality-initiated process requiring


**Table 7.2** Typical scales and confgurations of greyfeld residential redevelopment

Source: Adapted from the Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Housing Development Data, spatial layer

resident engagement and support at a neighbourhood level, responding to the locality's clearly identifable, place-specifc, strategic development needs. As outlined in Chap. 2, GPR's emergence as a new regenerative model for city redevelopment requires alignment of metropolitan and local government strategic and statutory planning (e.g., district greenling) and a municipality's preparedness to initiate a new level of engagement with local communities associated with the need for and benefts of local-area change.

Unsolicited bids from developers are an alternative model for transitactivated or place-activated GPR projects that are entrepreneurial, involving land development as a way of paying for the investment. Another possible GPR model would be top-down interventions from state and federal governments. Tese are all unlikely to be major contributors to greening the greyfelds, as most development is a partnership between developers/owners and local governments. Tus, the model outlined in this chapter is a municipality-initiated process requiring partnerships with the owners and the potential developers. Tis model is developed further in Chap. 8. the current chapter focuses on a development model that is working in its early stages in the City of Maroondah in Melbourne. Te process pioneered by the Greening the Greyfelds team in the City of Maroondah and in dialogue with the Victorian State Government is set out below as a model for step-wise creation of greyfelds precinct regeneration. Te project is closer to a place-activated GPR than a transitactivated GPR.

## **2 Governance Processes for Greyfeld Precinct Renewal**

#### **2.1 Declaration of Greyfelds as Areas Capable of Delivering More Housing Supply, Choice, and Diversity**

Based on the body of work undertaken by the *Greening the Greyfelds* project, GPR now exists as a new policy and planning directive in Plan Melbourne 2017–2051; this is a signal to local government of the need to create new pathways for urban infll in established suburbs (see Box 7.1):

#### **Box 7.1 Policy 2.2.4—Provide Support and Guidance for Greyfeld Areas to Deliver More Housing Choice and Diversity**

Greyfield sites are residential areas where building stock is near the end of its useful life and land values make redevelopment attractive. Melbourne has many residential areas that qualify as greyfield sites, particularly in established middle and outer suburbs. These areas often have low-density, detached housing on suburban-sized allotments that have good access to public transport and services. Until now, the redevelopment of these areas has been generally uncoordinated and unplanned. That must change. Greyfield areas provide an ideal opportunity for land consolidation and need to be supported by a coordinated approach to planning that delivers a greater mix and diversity of housing and provides more choice for people already living in the area as well as for new residents. Methods of identifying and planning for greyfield areas need to be developed. A more structured approach to greyfield areas will help local governments and communities achieve more sustainable outcomes.

Source: Plan Melbourne 2017–2050 (p. 51) (https://www.planmelbourne. vic.gov.au/\_\_data/assets/pdf\_file/0007/377206/Plan\_Melbourne\_2017-2050\_ Strategy\_.pdf)

Tis was an important step, as it gave credibility to the underlying research and encouragement to both the professionals in local government and the consultants who were trying to deliver it.

#### **2.2 A Broad Analysis of an Entire City's Potential for Greyfeld Regeneration Needs to Become Part of Future Metropolitan Strategic Planning Processes**

In Chap. 1, a metropolitan-wide assessment of residential redevelopment potential undertaken for Melbourne established that over one-third of the city's 32 municipalities had more than half their housing stock with high redevelopment potential. Ideally, the district greenlining process referred to in Chap. 1 becomes a key step in a city's urban regeneration strategy and process, incorporating the longer-term infrastructure retroft plans of major water, energy, and waste utilities. A governance model for long-term integrated planning involving utilities, transport, and state and municipal planners that spans the scales from macro to micro level and can become a guide to GPR (both place- and transit-activated) remains to be developed. Even where district greenlining processes are absent at metro level, they are nonetheless possible at municipal level where GPR needs to be activated.

#### **2.3 Locate Candidate Precincts for GPR at Municipal Level: Data Analytics**

An analysis of individual residential properties within municipalities using the ENVISION tool provides the starting point for assessing where there is potential for precinct-scale redevelopment. Speculative developers would use the software's basic 'market assessment' RPI outputs to identify properties where value is largely in the land and business-asusual, small-lot-subdivision redevelopment is prospective.

Municipal planners, however, require a broader analysis that can encompass additional local area redevelopment issues that address area regeneration and community beneft—what we have termed *additionalities*—that can be delivered as part of a GPR project. Tey cover the list of precinct-regeneration objectives in Table 7.1. ENVISION also enables *multi-criteria analysis* of property redevelopment potential in a municipality that can incorporate many of these objectives, providing an evidence base for change in municipal land use, transport, and housing strategies that are both near-term and long-term in nature. By switching specifc property and area attributes on or of, ENVISION highlights locations where there is a cluster of properties with high redevelopment potential *and* neighbourhood features that support higher-density development (such as proximity to public transport, shops, and schools) as well as well as potential for landscape redesign and activation from various perspectives (e.g., food mitigation, urban greening, or more-walkable streets). Figure 7.3 shows very clearly why the rather dominant blue of the solely market-based RPI becomes a series of stronger colours; indicating why municipal issues are so important to incorporate as well as RPI. Indeed, municipality-initiated or supported GPR is premised on

**Fig. 7.3** ENVISION analysis of residential redevelopment potential (**a**) and multiple-criteria-assessment of redevelopment context (**b**). (Source: data set derived from more than 20 Victorian Government data sets)

achieving additionality and common-good outcomes for the local community as well as increased housing supply.

Identifying and agreeing on the *best* of the candidate sites requires judgements that are political as well as technical; thus, a fnal set of steps is needed. Obtaining broad stakeholder involvement is how good politicians and their technical advisers fnd the best way through a range of options. Below are the steps taken with the selected stakeholder groups to choose specifc areas within the municipality.

#### **2.4 Identify GPR Precincts for Rezoning: Municipal-Community-State Government Engagement**

Data on residential redevelopment potential alone are unlikely to gain municipal support for a GPR rezoning. Rather, the various arms of municipal government need to be engaged, so that the full range of government, community, practitioner, and political stakeholders can have input to the process. Tis tiered and multi-faceted method incorporates a plurality of voices in the co-creation of outcomes. Outlined below is the process pioneered in the City of Maroondah:

• *Local government ofcers*: A whole-of-organisation working group was established across all relevant sections of the municipality, including engineering, parking, planning, community engagement, and openspace and asset management, to consider ENVISION analyses within the context of municipal-development priorities and policies. A set of workshops between these groups identifed places within the municipality that had current or emerging challenges and where precinctscale regeneration was a desirable intervention. An output from these workshops was a map of potential GPR precincts, each with its prospective precinct additionality. In the City of Maroondah, key additionalities sought for the candidate precincts were food mitigation, enhanced walkability, and green space, in addition to medium-density housing redevelopment. Municipal ofcers and consultants undertook scoping studies for each issue.

	- Restricting single-lot redevelopment through increasing setbacks and minimum lot sizes.
	- Controlling development through consistency with an incorporated plan, efectively enforcing amalgamation to deliver medium density.
	- Simplifying the development process for integrated (amalgamated) projects, thus rewarding developers with faster approval times.

**Fig. 7.4** Priority precinct for GPR process implementation with identifed redevelopment additionalities. (Source: https://yoursay.maroondah.vic.gov.au/ c134maro-ringwood, Retrieved 2 March 2021)


Te set of potential planning tools included:


## **2.5 Establish Normal Planning Processes for GPR Precincts: Municipal-State Government Processes**

Workshops with state and local government planners identifed three main topics that a new planning scheme needed to address for GPR to proceed: precinct and housing design, precinct additionality, and the cost of governance and infrastructure. Tese factors guided the creation of new statutory outcomes through a Development Plan Overlay, combined with a Developer Contribution Plan Overlay necessary to capture a proportion of development/project value to be used on fulflling 'of-site' precinct additionality work (Fig. 7.5 provides a workfow diagram of this process).

A precinct plan that incorporated dwelling design and precinct additionality elements was rendered as a visual plan for the overlay. Te schedule of the overlay (the text defning the rules and obligations) was then drafted to enshrine the preferred types of development. Te design guides and other relevant information were placed into the scheme as

**Fig. 7.5** Key processes for GPR land-use amendment

incorporated documents and reference documents. Te package of all documents was drafted within the (state government-provided) planningprovisions template and presented to the state planning authority to be considered as an amendment to the Municipal Planning Scheme.

Together these documents covered the explicit outcomes developers must deliver to comply with the desired planning outcomes. Should developers comply with the code, and if lot amalgamation were to occur, one additional storey was provided (on lots over 2000 m2 ; enabling the development of four-storey buildings to a height of 14 m), and thirdparty objections were removed. Te removal of third parties' rights to object was granted since residents had been engaged and had had the opportunity to object during the advertising process of the new overlay. Objections after its passing were therefore considered invalid. Tese documents have been submitted to the public exhibition phase of the Victorian government's planning amendment process (represented in Fig. 7.6) and titled Amendments C134-Maroondah, C136-Maroondah. At the time of writing, these Amendments have satisfed all municipal and state planning assessments by the Victorian Planning Panels and have been approved for ministerial signing (Planning Panels Victoria, 2021; again, see Figure 7.5). Te Victorian Planning Authority and the City of Maroondah are collaborating to develop a business model for the GPR scheme and an appropriate model of governance, fnal steps in the precinct regeneration process in order to mainstream and scale up.

Tis section has set out the planning processes that are needed to accomplish greyfeld precinct regeneration. Tey may appear complicated, but a novel planning solution requires testing to ensure it doesn't fail for lack of forethought or process. However, once the pilot is underway and begins being mainstreamed, the process is expected to become much simpler, as all necessary steps will be known and understood among stakeholder groups (as occurred with brownfeld regeneration after the Building Better Cities program). Technical and community stakeholders as well as developers will acquire a sense of trust and confdence in the planning system.

**Fig. 7.6** City of Maroondah website for Amendment C134. (Source: https://yoursay.maroondah.vic.gov.au/c134maro-ringwood. Retrieved 2 March 2021)

## **3 Design for Greyfeld Precinct Regeneration**

In Chap. 1 it was claimed that GPR was not failing for lack of *design* innovation. On the contrary, many architects and urban designers and state government architect ofces have illustrated what is possible in precinct-scale redevelopment (https://www.epw.qld.gov.au/about/initiatives/density-diversity-competition; https://www.governmentarchitect. nsw.gov.au/projects/missing-middle-design-competition). However, to date, *planning* had not been able to initiate such precinct-scale design-led initiatives in greyfelds. Tis book, and in particular this chapter, has shown that planning can be unblocked to enable GPR projects. Te chapter now turns to the key design principles for the place-activated GPR design principles and concepts that guided the City of Maroondah project.

Te key precinct design principles and objectives outlined in Table 7.1 include attributes of liveability, sustainability, and climate-change resilience, most of which are defcient in state and local governments' current statutory urban-development assessment principles and practices. Te following sections outline key steps in this process related to development of dwelling typologies and street typologies appropriate to regenerative precinct redevelopment in low-density greyfeld suburbs. Design guides (examples are available at www.greyfelds.com.au/documents) will also be required as an incorporated document in any amended local planning scheme and specifc development overlays designed to provide the basis for a legislated design-based assessment instrument for any proposed new GPR projects.

## **3.1 Dwelling Typologies**

Medium-density housing is the target for GPR, as it represents the most appropriate 'ft' for a sustainability transition in low-density urban fabrics in the Australian context (outside of activity centres and major transport corridors that have been zoned for higher-density apartment development). Te high demand for well-located medium-density housing was illustrated in Chap. 6.

To address the context of the locality, as well as to test the performance of selected housing designs, a set of medium-density dwelling typologies were developed, where the boundaries of statutory planning regimes, building codes, environmental performance, fnancial feasibility, and community acceptance could be tested. Figure 7.7 illustrates a selection of designs developed for this study, and Table 7.3 lists their attributes. Tese designs represented a set of dwellings that could be included in candidate GPR projects at sketch level for purposes of visualisation (e.g., 'ft' with neighbourhood), as well as performance assessment against a set of precinct design principles and objectives.

Candidate precincts ranged from single-lot subdivisions to four lotamalgamation developments, featuring residential densities up to 200

**Fig. 7.7** Multi-lot dwelling typologies. (Source: Newton et al., 2020)

dwellings per hectare. Tey were all scalable to more lots and precinct sizes. Opportunities for underground parking increased as developable lot sizes increased, making underground parking an option. In all cases, the following attributes were included: lot-coverage remained at roughly 50% of hard-surface coverage area; underground parking was planned to ensure space for deep-root canopy trees; public and private space was provided for all typologies; and all walkable surfaces were semi-permeable. Most typologies had a range of unit types, all of which were above industry standard in terms of foor-area requirements. All typologies were assessed against statutory regimes and passed existing regulations for the General Residential Zone. Tis provided a focus for the GPR overlay zoning where a transition from Neighbourhood Residential Zone to General Residential Zone was proposed as a minimum shift in building and planning controls.

Each state's planning provisions contains residential zones that provide for a range of intensities of development outcomes. Tough the names and legislative underpinnings vary, they can largely be referred to as 'nogo' (highly restricted redevelopment), 'slow-go' (limited redevelopment), and 'go-go' (large-scale redevelopment), which are described for all capital cities in Table 1.1. Application of specifc zones sets the built-form


**Table 7.3** Attributes of dwelling typologies selected for GPR

and regeneration outcomes, and by altering the zone it is possible to alter expected outcomes. Furthermore, and if there is capacity in the precinct, rezoning could also be written to incorporate precinct-specifc additionalities.

#### **3.2 Street Typologies and Activation**

Given the signifcant loss of private green space associated with current patterns of greyfelds development, there is increased pressure on streetscapes to perform many of the functions traditionally part of the residential lot: activation for recreation and play, providing space for more biodiversity, canopy trees, food-water mitigation, and provision for parking. In automobile-dependent suburbs, more land is typically devoted to roads and parking than housing (Litman, 2018), and more road space is dedicated to motorised transport than to pedestrian and cycling modes, even in the Netherlands (Nello-Deakin, 2019). A recent study in Melbourne has also revealed that more than one-third of public green space is road verge (Marshall et al., 2019). Place-activated GPR should aford a signifcant redistribution of street space (see Murray et al., 2015).

Street typologies were created for the Maroondah pilot precincts to optimise redevelopment options for two of Council's additionality targets: retention of green space (especially canopy trees) and food mitigation. Design focus was on also on enhancing connectivity and safety on the street to promote streetscape activation simultaneously with precinct regeneration; and to increase the amenity of the streets by altering trafc fow and parking. Figure 7.8 presents a range of scenarios, each of which increases the sustainability metrics of the streetscape (Table 7.4). Te scenarios, all of which were verifed by municipal engineers and statutory planners for compliance, include:


#### **156 P. W. Newton et al.**

**Fig. 7.8** Streetscape redesign options. (Source: Maroondah City Council internal discussion paper)

Tese interventions show that canopy can be increased from the existing 36.5% coverage to between 45% and 56.2%, and the STORM (Melbourne Water, 2020) rating can be improved from 0% to 107%, indicating that the bioswales and permeable surfaces achieve a 100% STORM rating. Tey also indicate a 45% reduction in the typical annual load of total nitrogen and thus achieved target water-quality objectives.



**7 Planning, Design, Assessment, and Engagement Processes…**

# **4 Precinct Design Assessment Tools**

To establish the level of additionality arising from a redevelopment project requires formal quantitative assessment across key performance areas. Tere is currently a defcit of accessible precinct assessment tools for the urban-design professions (practitioners as well as those in local government; Newton, 2019); although, there is an emerging set of instruments from research groups that can be applied to this process (Newton & Taylor, 2019).

A number of these, including CSIRO's latest NatHERS tool for assessing operating energy efciency (www.nathers.gov.au) and CRC for Water Sensitive Cities' Urban Infll tool (Renouf et al., 2019) for assessing nature-based performance in areas such as rainwater capture, stormwater runof, and evapotranspiration, were applied to the GPR pilot precinct in the City of Maroondah. Figure 7.9 shows the precinct identifed by the City of Maroondah for GPR development, with the sub-precinct identifed for performance assessment highlighted. Te assessment examined three scenarios. Te frst assessed the 'existing' housing built mostly before 1970; all with high redevelopment potential but poor physical and

**Fig. 7.9** GPR precinct in the City of Maroondah with representative housing typologies; sub-precinct for assessment highlighted

environmental attributes. Te second refects outcomes if business-asusual housing redevelopment occurs at a rate of 2.3:1 (refecting current knock-down-rebuild averages in the surrounding suburb). Te third— GPR—illustrates the outcomes of precinct-scale redevelopment that employs the typology 'Townhouse and apartment mix' (illustrated in a plan view of the redevelopment in Fig. 7.9).

Performance assessment was undertaken for the key domains listed in Table 7.5. Te benefts of precinct regeneration reported here focus primarily on the immediate built-form innovations possible in the subprecinct under existing building and planning regulations:


**Table 7.5** Precinct performance assessment across three development scenarios

(*continued*)


#### **Table 7.5** (continued)

Source: Newton et al. (2020)

aTaken from geospatial analysis of CAD drawings and aerial photos

bTaken from geospatial analysis of CAD drawings, aerial photos, and representative subdivisions locally for business-as-usual modelling

c Methodology based on sales values only. Full costings and methods are available in Planning Panels Victoria (2021)

dBased on consultant's modelling and averaging all dwellings in multi-unit subprecinct to eight-star, using NatHERS for Climate Zone 62, Moorabbin, in https:// www.nathers.gov.au/sites/default/fles/2019-10/NatHERS%20Star%20bands.pdf


# **5 Stakeholder Engagement**

While the successful outcome of the GPR project rests on the willingness of landowners to embrace the scheme, and thus will require signifcant engagement, there are also legislative requirements to accommodate prior to land-use change, and political risk-mitigation requirements to ensure that residents are socialised and supportive during the change. Some key steps and principles in the fnal stages of a place-activated GPR process are discussed in the following sections.

## **5.1 Legislative Engagement and Political Risk-Mitigation**

Contemporary turns in planning have seen community engagement gain prominence as a critical aspect of governance (Aulich, 2009). Aside from reducing community opposition, good engagement practice increases sense of belonging and civic pride (Lawson & Kearns, 2010), as well as improving the quality of urban planning projects (Jarvis et al., 2012; McAfee, 2013). However, it has been shown to be poorly implemented in Australia (Kelly, 2010). Tis and other criticisms of engagement practices have seen the recently changed Victorian Local Government Act set community engagement as one of its key reforms. Tis Act ensures that engagement, at a level that experts (e.g., IAP2, 2019) have deemed more than just information provision, be a central aspect of all local government decision-making. Compliance with legislation prior to statutory change, including providing proof of community support to councillors, required the following engagement activities by the *Greening the Greyfelds* team formed at the City of Maroondah:


As well as adhering to the engagement tenets of the Act, these activities, and the resulting data in the form of community voting, written comments, and engagement metrics, satisfed both municipal management and councillors that the community supported the project.

#### **5.2 Landowner Engagement in Pilot Precincts**

Tose engagements just described are principally related to satisfying government business logics rather than the true intent of community engagement: empowering citizens to take greater control of the governance associated with their local areas. A more 'grass-roots' style engagement, aimed explicitly at landowners in pilot precincts, took the form of what were termed 'town hall' and 'kitchen table' engagement activities.

*Town hall engagement* involved hosting publicly advertised open-house events in municipal buildings close to, or within, the pilot precincts; the aims being to ensure that residents knew about the proposed changes to the local planning scheme and to answer any questions residents had about the changes. Each open-house event ran over two days and contained an interactive map of the precinct and the planned additionalities, computer-rendered urban design illustrations of the precinct (pre- and post-development), a voting system for support or opposition to the system, and technical information sheets for dissemination. All landowners within and abutting the precinct were sent written invitations to the open-house sessions two weeks prior. Approximately half attended.

*Kitchen table engagement* occurs when residents are interested in the process and want to have a discussion with neighbours, municipal ofcers, and developers about their options. Te aim of these meetings in this project was to work towards consolidating lots that represent a mutually benefcial outcome. Te complexities and legalities of land amalgamation, combined with the ethical limits of applied research, meant that, at this point, academic control of the research project ceased, and it became a business process managed by industry professionals. However, to ensure the process had an ongoing engagement methodology (the components of which are illustrated in Fig. 7.10), a set of three playbooks was drafted to be used variously by landowners (to begin the process of land assembly with neighbours), developers (to defne the product and its concessions and obligations), and municipalities (to achieve the same outcomes without researcher involvement—efectively the full *Greening the Greyfelds* methodology). Te playbook for landowners covered issues such as:

**Fig. 7.10** Overview of the dimensions of landowner engagement required for lot consolidation and to instantiate GPR as a planning regime. (Source: Newton et al., 2020)


Tese have been fnalised and are available on the *Greening the Greyfelds* project website (Greyfelds 2020; https://greyfelds.com.au).

## **5.3 Engagement with Developers**

Developers were integrated into the engagement work in four areas. Te frst involved their inclusion in a community advisory group, where precinct location and additionality were debated. Here, developers were simply a voice of the community. Te second was during the creation of the housing typologies and feasibility assessments, where developers provided commentary on dwelling design and reviewed the assumptions related to fnancial feasibility. Te third was at internal (municipal) assessments of draft statutory amendments and, in particular, the developer contribution plans. Tis aspect was particularly telling, with the key messages being, frst, that developers simply wanted to know the rules of the system, after which they would make their own assessments; and second, that the additional cost of the developer contribution (to fund precinct additionality) would easily be ofset by either preapproved designs or exempting precinct-scale developments from notifcation, objection, and third-party review. However, as also indicated by Chandler (2016, p. 1), developers stated that greyfeld precinct scale redevelopment was not typical:

Australia's housing industry has some serious shortcomings that can no longer be avoided…. Te capabilities needed to design and build small scaled medium density housing projects of three to 10 dwellings up to three storeys atop below grade parking have yet to be developed. If medium density dwellings of the type described here are to make up a third of the housing landscape, a new marketing platform and delivery model will be required. Tese will not be ofered from the traditional builder display village. New design, procurement and construction skills will be necessary. Only fnancially viable builders who display a new level of professionalism will be trusted to take on these projects. Te industry must shift from its current level of denial of these realities. If governments are seriously minded to harvest the potential of greyfeld sites and the urban middle, they will not only need to bring the community along in support of these more modest densifcation initiatives, they will need to be proactive in making sure the housing industry has the capabilities to deliver them. Tis is a challenge for the housing industry. It is not a market that general contractors understand or have an aptitude for. Tis is an opportunity for the frst movers in this space to realise the potential of adapting their old project housing delivery model into a modern version of 'build to order' multiunit. (Chandler, 2016, p. 1)

Te GPR development arena needs a range of interventions at the builder/developer level. As outlined by Chandler (2016), the next set of issues to overcome is for the industry to up-skill into this new market.

## **6 Conclusion**

GPR faces multiple barriers to entry that necessitate new process interventions such as those that have been outlined in this chapter:


All Australian planning agencies are committed to public-good goals established for Australian cities: sustainable, liveable, inclusive, resilient, and productive. However, there is a signifcant lack of attention to trying new ways of delivering such challenging goals. A set of GPR planning concepts, strategies, and practices have been set out in this chapter and a trial has begun in one municipality in Melbourne. A greater commitment to greening the greyfelds is required through demonstration projects like the one in the City of Maroondah to increase the experience of how to transform greyfelds on a precinct basis. Tere is currently a lack of the transformative capacity in state and local governments needed for the delivery of new models of urban transport and housing development such as place-activated and transit-activated GPR. Te fnal chapter further explores GPR transition processes to drive change.

## **References**


*feld precincts*. AHURI, Final Report No. 236. Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Limited.


**Open Access** Tis chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.

Te images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# **Integrating Transition Processes for Regenerating the Greyfelds**

## **1 Introduction**

Tere is currently a defcit in urban planning associated with the future development of greyfelds. Strategies designed to encourage the transition to more-compact cities by directing development and population inwards and upwards rather than outwards are not performing as expected. Brownfeld development has accelerated, as refected in the growth of inner-city apartments. However, new housing development in greyfelds is underperforming. Higher-density housing development in designated activity centres and on transport arterials is lagging. Tese established planning approaches are necessary strategies but not sufcient, as they are being undermined by statutory planning regulations governing residential redevelopment in greyfeld suburbs. Piecemeal and fragmented smalllot subdivision via knock-down-rebuild has become the principal vehicle for housing redevelopment in the established ageing middle suburbs because they are all that the existing planning schemes permit. Tis suboptimal model is readily accommodated by developers, especially small contractors, within the existing residential zoning systems that preside over low-density suburbia, providing 1:1 and between 2:1 and 4:1 redevelopment. Because of these land-use planning policies, most new housing construction continues to be pushed into the poorly serviced peri-urban greenfelds despite strategic plans that incorporate initiatives to curb urban sprawl, and despite heavy demand for well-located, higherdensity housing, especially in high-amenity suburbs such as greyfelds.

Tis book advocates for the introduction of GPR as the guide to future urban development in the middle suburbs. Two new, linked models of greyfeld regenerative urban redevelopment need to be part of the palette of metropolitan planning strategies and statutory processes: place-activated and transit-activated GPR. Te process for change needs to begin by recognising the appropriate locations in greyfelds areas for intervention (which cover about 40% of most Australian cities) and undertake district greenlining to establish more specifc spatial targets for new GPR projects.

Te planning principles set out in this book can be summarised as:


Figure 8.1 shows this combination of key urban planning principles and charts the direction for future sustainable urban development policy and planning.

Achieving these interventions—reshaping, remaking, redeveloping, renewing, retroftting, regenerating—is challenging and will require new

**Fig. 8.1** Green urbanism—the planning logic for GPR. (Source: Adapted from Newton et al., 2011 and Newton & Glackin, 2014, including elements of a keynote presentation by P. Schwarz (Global Business Network) on Sustainable and High Growth Cities, World Cities Summit, Singapore, 29 June 2010)

urban land-use planning policies and innovative precinct-scale regenerative urban design processes and regulations, as outlined in the previous chapters. Teir transition challenges are highlighted in the following sections.

# **2 Making the Transition: What Needs to Change**

Table 8.1 outlines the 10 Transitions introduced in Chap. 1 with a précis of the innovations required to advance them that are outlined in this book.


**Table 8.1** GPR transition challenges and pathways

#### **Table 8.1** (continued)


#### **Table 8.1** (continued)


## **3 The Need for Partnerships**

Fundamental to the processes outlined in Table 8.1 is the need for partnerships. In all GPR projects, whether transit- or place-activated, there will be no precinct-scale land assembly followed by detailed delivery of the necessary land development *unless government, community, and developers are working together*. Tis was very clear in the Maroondah demonstration project (Chap. 7) and other demonstrations such as WGV (Chap. 4). Such partnerships need governance frameworks and instruments to enable co-creation of regeneration strategies, plans, and projects.

Figure 8.2 identifes the necessary governance/partnerships space, with key stakeholder groups.

Tese partnerships all have their specifc roles, as identifed in Fig. 8.2. GPR projects could start with an initiative from any one of these stakeholders—the three levels of government, innovative businesses,

**Fig. 8.2** Partnerships needed for GPR

mainstream fnanciers and developers, and the community. But they will all be needed at some point to accomplish GPR. Engagement and integration are therefore key, and they require partnership governance processes to commence from the moment that a new GPR project is envisaged.

Te Building Better Cities Program in the early 1990s in Australia was a federal government program that set up a partnership process and a new model for redeveloping brownfeld precincts across all cities. Te federal government provided leadership and seed funding and oversaw development of projects involving state and local governments and industry that multiplied the initial seed investment (Neilson, 2008; Sharma & Newman, 2020; Tomson et al., 2017; Newton & Tomson, 2017; Newton, 2018). Tese pioneering inner-city brownfeld regeneration projects had little community involvement, as they were largely on old industrial or abandoned port sites. In today's greyfelds it would not be possible to imitate this model without signifcant community engagement. In greyfelds, current top-down planning no longer works efectively; nor does simple bottom-up planning. Te required partnership process is not linear; rather, it needs to be seen as a system that can be set in motion from any point but must eventually bring all its facets into a journey that lets them work creatively together.

Some of the key interactions that need partnerships to help deliver GPR are set out below.

### **3.1 Residents/Community**


ing the community additionalities to residents in greenlined 'change' areas. Regenerated greyfeld precincts need to be places where people *want* to live.

• Tere is thus a need to make the lot-amalgamation process less risky among neighbours in selected greenlined districts where GPR overlays are being proposed. Tis will involve innovative forms of engagement in 'town hall' and 'kitchen table' settings with residents as every step of the precinct-regeneration process is co-created.

#### **3.2 Innovators/Urban Designers**


• Perhaps of more importance is to shift from prescriptive to performancebased building and planning codes for GPR; this enables more innovative design but requires transparent performance assessment, an area currently in defcit (Newton, 2019).

A range of innovative Toolkits exists to assist with precinct performance assessment and visualisation. Many of these have been developed in Australia by the Cooperative Research Centre for Low Carbon Living (Newton & Taylor, 2019) and the Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities (in particular two of their Integrated Research Projects: Water-Sensitive Urban Infll and Economic Evaluation of Nature-Based Services; https://watersensitivecities.org.au/). Nextgeneration versions of these tools will be integrated within a Precinct Information Modelling framework now emerging (Fig. 8.3; Newton et al., 2018), capable of being employed on national digital collaboration platforms to drive the acceleration and mainstreaming of precinct-scale planning and design (Newton & Frantzeskaki, 2021).

**Fig. 8.3** Precinct Information Model—integrating and accelerating the precinct design process. (Source: Plume et al., 2019)

**181**

## **3.3 Urban Developers/Communities and Civil Society**


## **3.4 Federal/State/Local Government**


#### **Box 8.1 Greyfelds Precinct Regeneration Authority**

In 2020, the Property Council of Australia launched a strategy paper to discuss the principles they considered underpinned successful precincts and how they can be enabled through public- and private-sector strategic planning, policy, partnerships, and engagement (PCA, 2020). The five critical elements included a shared vision and understanding between government and industry about: (1) the need for *a well-resourced precincts authority* to streamline development and foster positive outcomes; (2) the features that enable the delivery of successful precincts; (3) new planning processes that carve out a clearly defined role for precincts as vital infrastructure; (4) the role of the private sector in determining a site's precinct development potential; and (5) the role of government in the timely delivery of vital infrastructure to enable the success of precinct developments. The focus of this paper along with discussions associated with a *Precincts Authority* was large-scale precinct projects such as National Employment and Innovation Clusters. Extensive greyfield precinct redevelopment of a scale that is a

#### **Box 8.1 (continued)**

focus of this book was not in the PCA's scope, being primarily economicoriented. Planning authorities require a balanced set of objectives: social, community, and environmental as well as economic. Surely it is time that a Greyfields Precinct Regeneration Authority, first advocated a decade ago in the context of greyfield regeneration (Newton et al., 2011), is established that can help create the partnerships necessary to deliver GPR projects.


• Te Australian federal government has a long history of avoiding responsibility for city planning and development, apart from a short period between 1991 and 1996 when the Deputy Prime Minister established the Building Better Cities programme (Neilson, 2008). Tere is now a Ministry with responsibility for cities after Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull 30 years later sought to show leadership in this area—something that has bi-partisan political approval. Tere is, therefore, an opportunity for the national government to lead a *Better Cities 2.0* Partnership to inject much-needed urban regeneration into the greyfelds of Australian cities.

# **4 Getting Started**

A key message in this book is that the goal of achieving green urbanism in greyfelds is fundamentally a *problem of planning*, not design, politics, lack of investment, or lack of demand from people looking for better 'living arrangements' (dwelling and location combinations). We are suggesting new ways to do planning that may help. Chapter 7 presented a detailed example of a new GPR planning process in Melbourne. It established a process for engaging the key stakeholders listed in Fig. 8.2 in all the stages required to deliver a GPR project. However, there remains the challenge of achieving a greater level of understanding among stakeholder groups (and especially in the community) to assist with gaining broader political acceptance of planning that enables the greening of the greyfelds.

Te key concepts of both transit- and place-activated GPR and district greenlining are core to the vision of greyfeld regeneration. Mainstreaming what was pioneered in the City of Maroondah is the transformative process that lies ahead.

# **5 Conclusion**

Te middle suburban greyfelds are in trouble in Australian cities and many other cities around the world. Tis book has developed the concept of greyfeld precinct regeneration with two models for planning and development, both of which are necessary: transit-activated and placeactivated GPR. Tere are many issues associated with *design* for such precincts that are not new (principles of good precinct design are well established but not yet fully realised in on-the-ground projects), and there are many emerging opportunities resulting from twenty-frstcentury distributed urban technologies that target the precinct scale, as discussed in this book. Tere are, however, many *planning* issues that are simply not being addressed, as much of the planning system for greyfelds defaults to the delivery of suboptimal small-lot subdivisions that do not halt urban sprawl. Tey are simply not coping with the demand for new housing and the need for more regenerative redevelopment in greyfelds.

A fundamental need is to fnd a mechanism for stimulating land assembly with the local community within a well-established and accepted strategic planning process so that precinct-scale regenerative redevelopment can be realised instead of single-lot subdivision. District greenlining has been advanced as a necessary strategic planning process that enables the boundaries of larger districts to be identifed where retroftting timetables for next-generation energy, water, waste, transport, and nature-based infrastructures are planned in an integrated manner, providing the spatial context for individual place- and transit-activated GPR projects. Tis enables the beginning of a process of discussion about the potential for landowners to become positive agents for change and fnding better outcomes in such areas, whether that involves selling and leaving or wanting to stay and become a 'partner' in a GPR project. Tis indicates that *engagement* with local residents to establish win-win partnerships will be the critical step that can unlock the possibilities of greyfeld regeneration.

When design, planning, and engagement are integrated into a vision for greening the greyfelds, the serious rebuilding of the greyfelds can begin. It is a unique twenty-frst-century opportunity. Urban regeneration represents the chance to usher in a new restorative economy capable of signifcant wealth generation and job creation (Cunningham, 2008), as well as a green economy where new technologies and the achievement of goals for sustainable urban development are central to societal progress (Newton & Newman, 2015), setting Australia's cities up for a better future.

## **References**


PCA. (2020). *Principles of successful precincts*. Property Council of Australia.


**Open Access** Tis chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and indicate if changes were made.

Te images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# **Index**

**A**

Activity centres, 3 Afordable housing, 6 Agglomeration economies, 15 Amenity, 13 Automobile cities, 7

#### **B**

Biodiversity, 51 Biophilic urbanism, 77–78 Brownfelds, 2 Building typologies, 9–14

#### **C**

Climate-adaptation, 107–112 Climate change, 105–117 Climate projections, 106–107 Co-design, 40

Consolidated precinct, 19 Consolidation, 12 Costs of sprawl, 22 COVID-19, 6

#### **D**

Decarbonisation, 22 Density, 5 Depopulation, 15 Design and Development Overlay, 148 Design guides, 152 Design-led, 12 Detached-housing estates, 14 Developer Contribution Plan, 148 Distributed renewable energy, 39 District greenlining, 37 Dwelling typologies, 152–154

© Te Author(s) 2022 **189** P. W. Newton et al., *Greening the Greyfelds*, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6238-6

**E** Eco-infrastructures, 2 Ecological footprints, 20 Eco-positive, 24 Electro-mobility, 72 Engagement, 135–168 Established suburbs, 19

**F** Financial feasibility, 152 Fragmented infll, 30 Full-service districts, 5

#### **G**

Gentrifcation, 15 Governance processes, 141–150 Green economy, 72 Greenfeld, 3 Greenfeld subdivisions, 60 Green infrastructure, 116 Green space, 4 Green space-oriented development, 29 Greyfeld, 3 Greyfeld precinct, 41 Greyfeld regeneration, 59 Greyfelds Precinct Regeneration Authority, 43

#### **H**

Health, 22 High redevelopment potential, 1 High-rise, 10 Household life cycle, 129–131

Household types, 19 Housing diversity, 6 Housing infll, 32 Housing life cycles, 16–19 Housing supply, 51

#### **I**

Infll, 13 Infll targets, 56 Innovation, 179 Integrated design, 12 Integrated land use and transport planning, 5 Integrated water systems, 5

**K** Knock-down-rebuild, 3

#### **L**

Land assembly, 2, 139 Landowner engagement, 163–165 Liveability, 12 Liveability–sustainability nexus, 21 Local government, 145 Lot consolidation, 128

#### **M**

Medium density, 10 Micro-mobility, 5 Micro-utilities, 25 Middle suburbs, 2 Mixed-use, 38

Mobility, 92–93 Modular construction, 181 Multi-criteria analysis, 143

#### **N**

Neighbourhood change, 126 Neighbourhood densifcation, 126–127 Not in my backyard (NIMBY), 5

#### **P**

Partnership, 42 Performance-assessment, 42 Piecemeal, 4 Planning failure, 56–61 Precinct additionality, 145 Precinct Information Modelling, 37 Precinct plan, 149 Precinct scale, 2 Precinct-scale developments, 3 Processes, 135–168 Property developers, 3 Public housing, 183

#### **R**

Real estate 'package,' 19 Redevelopment potential index (RPI), 16 Regenerative redevelopment, 3 Regenerative urbanism, 23 Re-localisation, 6 Resilience, 25 Restrictive zoning, 16 Retroft, 16 Risk-mitigation, 162–164 Rooftop solar, 75–77

#### **S**

Small-lot subdivision, 4, 60 Social disadvantage, 22 Sprawl, 6 Statutory planning, 152 Street typologies, 155–157 'Suburban' cities, 9 Suburbanisation, 14 Suburban re-urbanisation, 16 Suburban-to-urban transition, 10 Sustainability, 12–13

#### **T**

Telecommuting, 9 30-minute city, 52 Trackless trams, 2 Transit cities, 7 Transition, 2 Transition-management, 40 Transit-oriented developments (TODs), 63 Transport corridors, 3, 26 20-minute neighbourhoods, 6

#### **U**

Up-zoning, 13 Urban consolidation, 56 Urban fabric, 7 Urban footprints, 20 Urban living arrangements, 125 Urban metabolism, 89–91 Urban Nature-Based Solutions, 111–112 Urban-precinct design principles, 12 Urban renewal precincts, 59

Urban structure, 61–65 Urban technological transition, 71

**W**

Walking cities, 7 Wastewater treatment, 77 Water-sensitive design, 5 Waves of innovation, 72

**Y** Yes, in my back yard (YIMBY), 13 Yield, 13

**Z**

Zero-carbon, 5 Zero carbon precincts, 39 Zoning, 2