Docklands is a prime piece of real estate comprised of 200 hectares with water access and directly adjacent to a major city centre. The development was supposed to contain "principles of public access, environmental sustainability, mixed use, height controls to protect amenity, heritage protection, public artworks, waterfront promenades, public open space, pedestrian/cycle networks and public transport" Yet, ten years after the Docklands conception Dovey is asking what went wrong? In the beginning the Docklands were "declared to be both market driven and design driven" however, through taking a closer look at what actually eventuated in the development process, Dovey uncovers some serious deviations from the initial strategy.

The hype and strategy surrounding the docklands anticipated huge international investment as being the biggest driver of development, but due to collapse or rejection of these international players the selected developers for "five of the six precincts are Melbourne-based" and nearly all projects are Australian owned and controlled. As Dovey says, initially the docklands hype assumed "large amounts of global investment with no public cost under the condition that the state largely surrender design control. The result has been medium amounts of local investment at substantial public cost coupled with loss of control"

From the outset the Docklands was intended to have little or no financial impact on the public purse, yet one of the most questionable deviation is the public spending on operational costs, subsidies and major infrastructure projects. State funded investments include Telstra Dome, bridge extensions of Collins, Bourke and Latrobe, a new tram way, Wurundjery Way, Grimes Bridge, Web Bridge, broadband digital network, subsidies to attract the technology park and film studio and operational costs for the Dockland Authority.

The planning and urban design phase that followed is described by Dovey to be a bit of a compromised and fluid process. With the Docklands termed 'millennium development' the government was understandably getting worried with minimal development occurring, and this is one angle where developers pushed and manipulated the circumstance for public investment. Developers were willing to provide infrastructure in their own precincts where it could be controlled, but were less inclined to pitch in funds for the overall core infrastructure.
The Precincts are all under individual developer control, and it is criticised that the "planing and design process was essentially being subcontracted to developers". By this Dovey means the overall conception and integration of the Docklands was relatively piecemeal and laden with uncertainty. While the planning scheme allowed for developers and designers to think outside the box, this same freedom for all precincts made it especially difficult to calculate risk- it is hard to know how the adjoining precinct will add or subtract value if you don't know what they are doing.

This freedom to move actually resulted in a contradiction of standards and in some cases disregarded the planing scheme. On the north side a row of 80 metre towers dominate the skyline and place the waterfront in perpetual shade, where were height controls in this instance? Yet in another precinct, Waterfront City, this is not the case.

With the individual precincts drawing attention away from an integrated approach, Dovey is critical of the failure to develop the harbour as a major centrepiece. Wharves and warehouses have the possibility to add cultural and heritage value, yet with the focus being on the precinct there was no "imperative to preserve it" Additionally the finger pier is a key to integrated conceptual thinking creating a public focus point, but with precincts on all sides this focus is somewhat lost.

Ultimately, Dovey is of the opinion that the 'market driven' approach was not necessarily the way to go because as we can see, it did not deliver the benefits it was supposed to. He suggests that perhaps a more realistic angle would have been to realise that public investment was required over that 10 years. Flowing from this, more control could have been taken, not only to create a more imaginative and integrated place, but one that promoted private investment as well.

Questions

• With such a major addition to the city, why would the Government initially be reluctant to procure funds for infrastructure and development?
• How did the planning system fail to produce the desired outcomes of connection, integration and public access? What could have been done better?
• From personal experience (ie visiting the Docklands), and a design perspective what are the positive and negative elements of the area, what would you change if you could?

Reference:

Dovey K. 2005, "Hype and Hope" in Fluid City: Transforming Melbourne's Urban Waterfront, UNSW Press, Sydney, Ch 10 (9p)

12. City Futures 26th May, 2008 10:09:53   [#] 

Comments

Dovey, K. 2005 "Hype and Hope"
Personally, I’m not a fan of Docklands. A barren windswept collection of non-complementary towers that block out the sun and further channel wind into the streets. While adjacent to probably the most connected rail station in Victoria and with the CBD just on the other side, Docklands fails to connect with its surrounds or to immerse itself within the historical context that the area was originally used for. The first time I visited was to attend a party on a boat which was to depart from the docks. Not knowing the area, I found it extremely difficult to navigate my way there. Disembarking was actually delayed by an hour due to so many guests being in similar circumstances as myself. On another occasion I was attending a party at a restaurant. At the end of the party we would have liked to catch a tram back into the CBD, but there were no more trams running at that time of night, nor was there a taxi rank.
I found the buildings in Docklands to be too great in height and appeared cheap and flimsy. Venues were far and few between, accessed by large open areas that were simply too vast to ever be filled, with historic buildings being eclipsed by surrounding development or pulled-down in part for barrier forming roads. Far from child friendly, Docklands was not developed around people, but rather around private profit. This is ultimately what the market alone will deliver – poor design outcomes.

Clearly I have little a positive thing to say about Docklands and feel there is little that can be done with how its been developed – the place is a hole! If I had reins over how development would occur, there would be a 12 story height limit, with buildings often being built closer to the waterfront (though scaled down towards the water) in some areas. Considering the wind aspect, it would be better to shield public open areas. Roads would be minimal, infact I’m a fan of the idea of making Docklands completely car free, only accessible by train, tram, bus, bike and on foot, with cars to be left in communal car parks at specific locations. This would immediately increase pedestrian activity and utilization of public spaces, and for heavens sake, let’s get a primary school out there or at least a day care center. But alas this will never happen, so now I will sit and cry….

Edward Crossland  27th May, 2008 14:28:13  

Dovey, K. 2005 "Hype and Hope"
I am also not a fan of Docklands. It lacks some of the essential ingredients that makes a place buzz with activity.

While urban designers are obsessed with active frontages through the inclusion of cafes, restaurants and bars, this has failed to make the Docklands a vibrant place.

The planning system failed to ensure adequate linkages were included into the Docklands plan and the fact that it was developed and planned privately to a large extent meant that development occurred in a fragmented way. Perhaps the planning system failed to market influence.

Docklands has the large advantage of proximity to city and excellent infrastructure provisions as well as the beautiful location. However, it has been poorly planned to respond to the neighbouring CBD and constraints of the site such as wind. It has also failed to provide for a range of activities such as commercial, retail, entertainment and residential. While it has many of these, perhaps not on an integrated scale; that is, you are required to walk a considerable distance to access different types of activities. A more integrated development plan could have helped achieve a more active place which was buzzing with life. A place is what people make it and Docklands has failed to attract the people. In my mind this is because of its fragmented layout, wind tunnels and disconnection with the city.
Kelly  28th May, 2008 21:33:10  

Dovey, K. 2005 "Hype and Hope" (re Docklands)
It is so disappointing to read the comments we've made about Docklands and realise how much they ring true. What an amazing opportunity seemingly wasted by a case of cold feet. It's urban renewal projects such as this that give cities the chance to really put their name out there in terms of vision and innovation.

In particular, I agree with Dovey regarding criticism of the way precincts were individully developed and controlled by their respective developers. It is difficult to believe that risk management processes on the government's behalf wouldn't have set off screaming alarm bells around this (along with the reduced interest from international investment). Naturally, each developer wants to maximise their market share, so of course they each take no option other than to build soaring towers. And yes, creating competition between precincts before the entire development has even captured the imagination of a decent slice of the public is just absurd.

I think the lack of diversity offered by Docklands - particularly in housing but also commercial - is another big problem. The nature of apartment towers does nothing to enhance the atmosphere, given that even if all the flats were occupied you wouldn't know when you're walking around there. Surely waterside developments with height restrictions (and staggered to the waterfront, as Ed suggested) would allow for a more creative use of residential outdoor private open space in a way that would contribute to the conviviality of the area. Hell, even if people could just open their windows!

One thing I do really enjoy about the area is the public art. It is just disappointing how its placement often lacks integration with its surrounds, and how such drawcard features haven't been utilised sensibly, for example in creating particular arts/cultural attractions. Again, this is clearly related to the absence of an integrated development approach and the lack of any 'visionary' control over Docklands as a whole.
NF  28th May, 2008 23:48:44  

Dovey, K. 2005 "Hype and Hope"
I wouldn't go so far as to say a 'hole' as previously stated. I have been into Docklands only a number of times - eating at a restaurant or visiting friends in the towers, but I've always had a good time. I think the implementation of the 'docklands zone' certainly helped to expedite development and as a result it produced some kinda funky looking buildings.
Having said that, I couldn't picture myself living there because I would need something to do other than living or eating at a restaurant. I realise there are bars there, but theres not much else. I like Ed's idea of a primary school or childcare centre. Other uses and facilities like these need to be implemented there to open it up a little bit. The fact that it is so disconnected from the city increases the need to use the land for something that will attract people to it, and to make the trip. Sporting facilities, galleries, specialty shops - all attractive uses that might get people down there.
Duelling McClassy  29th May, 2008 00:44:37  

Dovey, K. 2005 "Hype and Hope"
Governments will be relucatant to procure funds to this development possibly due to the issues and risks associated with the Public Private Partnership factor. Government, perhaps are not completely sure the Docklands development would become successful, they fear it may potentially fail. When they put all the financial issues on the private body, it does not leave them at risk. IF a project was to fail with government funding, then most likely tax payers (US) will be ultimately affected, so to answer the questions, they dont wanna chip in, coz they is scaerrrred.

The second point is abit biased, personally i dont see the docklands as a failed project and i see this place will no doubtedly blossom and grow, adding to victorias economy.


I see alot of criticism about Docklands not being integrated or connected to the city however, with the docklands development, many people have this idea that it is disconnected, in my view stems from two things; design and age.

The Docklands development, compared to that of King street (the slummiest section of the CBD)is seen as possibly avant garde and new, so we have these two contrasting areas that are juxtaposed to one another, obviously we will see a disconnection - not to the fault of the docklands area though - think about it, a rock placed next to a gold buillion. So in conclusion, i very much like the docklands development, it puts melbourne on the worlds centrestage as a modern, growing, vibrant and contemporary city, or should i say it enhances these factors as Melbourne is already the worlds number one livable city.


No criticisms with the development, perhaps onlyu thing i could think of is the time it will take to see this place come to fruition, perhaps revamping the docklands area to a specialised panel to speed up planning would be a good start.
LONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG  29th May, 2008 15:36:19  

Dovey, K. 2005 "Hype and Hope"
I feel that I have to step in here to back up docklands a bit. The concept initially was a good idea and was greatly needed for Melbourne with a high rise attachment to the city and a new area for entertainment and dining other than Southbank. Although I haven’t spent much time myself there I (and the odd time I have been there it is portrayed as a barren windy place) I think that there is now a need to look more closely at the development and start bringing about a change. These kinds of areas and master plans usually have 5 year audit periods which I think docklands is much overdue for.
One of the first things that I would implement into the area is more infill between and around the buildings that are currently there. One of the major attractions and niceties about Melbourne currently is the laneways and small spaces that are used around the city, which bring about activity. For example even new developments such as Melbourne Central and QV have small intricate laneways that area always bustling with people. So I think that by infilling the areas around docklands with more low story commercial buildings and producing a bit more ad-hoc style development these areas would increase the activity and the connectivity (and stop the wind by allowing people to travel indoors or in enclosed spaces as the current world trend is) through a collection of these commercial spaces. There is also the issue of dis-connectivity to the city with the areas between Spencer and Elizabeth streets predominantly used for business rather than commercial and entertainment areas. However saying this the dis-connectivity to the new high rise apartments popping up everywhere south of Southbank are even more segregated with major roads such as city road and kings way directing these residential towers with no landscaping whatsoever. Things like Ed's idea of implementing schools or day-care centres are more of what is needed.
Therefore I think us as planners need to step back and try to look at better solutions rather than just criticize the area and there is the need to carry out continual audits on how these developments are going and what more can be done. And in the end I think docklands still will succeed and become an integral part of the city.

Alistair  3rd June, 2008 23:26:01  

Dovey, K. 2005 "Hype and Hope"
I think im becomming obsessed with this site (Im using this site for my assignment!) but following on with Alistairs comments, I think his completely on the ball there. Ive visited Docklands several times for work and for play and realise that yes, it is very disconnected. Considering it is adjacent to open waters the temperature during winter and autumn is much more colder as opposed to other areas around the city. One of the reasons why so many people flock to Melbourne central as alistair mentioned is due to the inner lane ways that promote the connectivity (you can get from Latrobe street to Bourke Street without having to get wet). As my previous posts notes, perhaps we just need to provide docklands with some more time to grow, but for this to be achieved the planning system seriously needs to change in order to churn out more developments, and for those who may consider quality over quanitity the argument is that these developments will still be analyzed in detail but just the obsolete or frivolous matters are removed from the planning process. Oh and Docklands needs ALOT more green...too much concrete, another grand park would be so great like the lawn infront of the state library or a smaller version of flagstaff gardens.
LONG  4th June, 2008 10:41:51  

Hype and Hope
At the first time, Docklands sounds very interesting, with the apartments and cool cafes and restaurants. But somehow, the place looks dull, too much concrete (yes, i agree with the previous comment about concrete). There's not enough harbour's activity. I expect activities like fishing or any water sports, etc but there's none. Some of the restaurants are very expensive too. And because of its location to the city, I'd rather go to the city than docklands because sometimes the weather is not very supportive. What i want to advise Docklands to do is having more water activities or play ground or park. Whatever differentiate it from the city.
Sun`  10th June, 2008 11:21:09