Good morning / introduction. I am a landscape architect, a consultant to MMRA and one of the principal authors of the UDS for the Metro Rail Project. You have my expert witness statement, and I have also participated in a conclave with the three other urban design expert witnesses appearing on behalf of other parties to produce a joint statement, which I assume you also have. Rather than repeating the content of the UDS or either of those statements today, I intend to only briefly recap some of the key points in my statement about the context for urban design in the project, and summarise the nature of the issues raised in the different UD expert statements, to leave as much time as possible for questions. 1
In explaining the context for urban design as part of the Metro Rail Project – context in terms of process, rather than physical context – this slide shows the Concept Design as proposed for Parkville Station in the EES documentation. 2
And this slide shows illustrations of the City of Melbourne’s Concept Design for University Square. The contrast between the Parkville Station 'concept design' and the University Square 'concept design' illustrates the point that there is no concept design for the Metro Project at this stage -- as most urban designers would use the term. I don’t mean to criticise the MMRA’s choice of terminology. In fact there is rather little profession-wide agreement about many important terms, for example it seems to me that architects and landscape architects regard the term “master plan” in radically different ways. So the way the terms are being used needs to be made clear, and for this project, the Concept Design establishes the tunnels alignment, locations of station boxes, and approximate locations of station entries, vents and other structures, but there are no design proposals for the public realm where the proposed underground rail system breaks through the ground surface – certainly not to a level of resolution as in the University Square proposals. 3
Even though more detailed work has been done by the MMRA (as reflected in various indicative views of stations), given the scope for variation through the procurement process, the final urban design outcomes are not known at this stage. Its highly unlikely that the designs will be built as represented here. 4
As an illustration of the potentially diverse outcomes that can arise through the performance-based procurement process for the Metro Project, this slide shows four concepts prepared for VicRoads’ current Swan Street Bridge project. These four designs respond to the same highly constrained brief, which is basically to attach 4-metre wide cantilevered shared paths on both sides of the existing bridge. In fact the two bottom images don’t represent the actual structural diversity in the concepts very well; the differences are far from superficial. The Swan Street Bridge is in some ways the equivalent of one component of the Metro Rail Project. If you multiply the opportunities for design diversity across the Metro as a whole, the range of possibilities is significant. Providing urban design guidance that sets out expectations for the Project, but allows for this diversity in design responses, is essential to the purpose of the UDS. 5
However, that flexibility is no reason for undue concern about the Project impacts. While the scale of underground construction is indeed significant, the above- ground elements will not be huge structures. If you mention the word “portals”, some designers are inclined to become over- excited thinking about the chance to make their mark for a new Sun King or Bonaparte and start conceiving of new versions of an Arc de Triomphe. Equally, the term “above-ground infrastructure” can conjure up nasty associations of elevated freeways and the like. But neither of those extremes is relevant to above-ground elements and urban design aspects of the Metro Rail project. 6
There are many examples of equivalent infrastructure around the city. Now, if we didn’t need these things, we wouldn’t clutter public spaces with them, but we generally understand that they serve important purposes, and accept them without a great deal of angst. Generally, the design aspiration is for unobtrusive neutrality – and they often succeed in that aspiration and are generally overlooked. I wouldn’t want to suggest that “unobtrusive neutrality” as an aspiration equates with “crudely utilitarian”, and a few of these structures are actually quite nicely designed. If you google the car park entry at the Museum, you’ll find that people even use it as a backdrop for wedding photos. 7
But apart from the details of the objects themselves, much of their impact depends upon where and how they are sited. I find the news kiosk in Collins Street (upper right) to be an annoying obstacle; while the toilet is no more in the way that the centre-of-road parking further along the street. The info pillar illustrates that – depending on context – height is often not as much as an issue as breadth. The vents at Docklands illustrate how little it takes to make something more obtrusive than it needs to be, again in contrast with the more recessive design of the toilets. So the details of the objects are no important in isolation, but in relation to their impact on their surroundings, and those surroundings vary. 8
In addition slight changes in dimensions or locations can also have significant spatial and functional impacts. I think most of us here appreciate the substantial differences in functionality and amenity of public spaces that results from differences in kerb alignment in these Melbourne streets. A metre or even a half-metre variation in the position of objects that affect functional spaces can therefore be very important. But the crucial fact at this stage in the Metro Rail project is that this level of design resolution has not occurred. 9
The process of design resolution will need to be carefully managed. The UDS is an important part of the guidance offered for this process. 10
Moving to the Expert Witness Statements for the IAC, there are four statements specifically addressing urban design including: my own Rob McGauran for the University of Melbourne, Rob Moore for the City of Melbourne, and Steve Schutt for the City of Stonnington 11
The four of us are largely in agreement in relation to aims and objectives of urban design for the Project. All support the project and seek to ensure the best possible outcomes. Even some areas of superficial disagreement between our statements, to some degree, mask underlying agreement, and in our Joint Statement we have worked to resolve ‘issues’ raised as constructive comment on the UDS, with details of recommended additions and amendments. (Note that proposed amendments to the UDS in the joint statement are slightly expanded from my own statement, and should be substituted for my Appendix A.) We also view the process as being important to good design outcomes, and have made a variety of comments to reinforce that view. 12
The extent to which we disagree partially reflects variation in how we think it appropriate or possible to set out design requirements – being more or less prescriptive, for example. There are some points raised by some UD experts that I have not addressed to avoid duplication of other MMRA experts, and there are also some points raised about the Project scope, which I believe are of arguable relevance to the IAC. However, in regard to both of those last two points, whether I agree or disagree, I am not prepared to argue either way and don’t think I should take up time in the hearing doing so. The other UD experts will address these as they see fit. 13
Stepping back to the Public submissions on the EES – The only submissions that address UD in any substantial way were by professionals engaged through CoM, CoPP, CoS and a few major institutions, and most of those have been followed up with the expert witness statements already discussed. Setting those aside, the public submissions on the EES appear to reflect my observation at the very start of my presentation today: there is no ‘urban design’ shown as most people would understand it, and so there is almost no comment on urban design. 14
Recommend
More recommend
