PLANNING FUTURES

A recent news item reported on the residents’ concern with a high-rise proposal for the Fortitude Valley in Brisbane, Queensland. It is a protest that one sees frequently: the worry with surprise developments that are never expected, not even by the Town Plan: https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/residents-say-16-storey-tower-bid-breaches-faith-with-valley-plan-20240521-p5jfh5.html

The problem with city planning is that the name appears to promise some organised future, but in reality, the process is one of outlining possibilities and receiving propositions that are presented to those who should have planned, Councillors, and others in power, with the outcome being negotiated to fit something that the ‘planners’ and others think that they can ‘get through’ all the required processes with a good dose of canny cunning and spin.

So it is that surprise projects come up for what is called ‘approval,’ when they probably have already been ‘approved’ informally. The ‘planning’ exercise by what is usually now called the ‘planning and development’ section, becomes one of persuading the public, and maybe other Councillors, that the agreed, negotiated proposal is appropriate, and fits ‘the intention’ of the plan, if not the exact profile, words, or figures.

This farce then goes through all the processes the plan might require for development approval, and get approved in spite of every objection that may have been made in accordance with the requirements of the defined process. The exercise becomes one of countering all objections with ‘special conditions’ that have been tailored to address each and every point. This approach might even have clauses itemising x, y, and or z ‘all to the engineer’s approval,’ and conditions similar to this, thus getting over the hurdle of the objection by postponing the approval within an approval.

It all becomes a very tricky game that could be done away with and managed with rigour and meaning if a real plan was in place; a plan that did illustrate, describe, and define just what the future of a city might be. After all, this is what a ‘plan’ is. If planners did the work and clearly spelt out in detail the future that was envisaged in a plan, then no one would be surprised; and the game of cleverly creating ‘special conditions’ can be done away with, because everyone would know what the aim of development would be; the end result would be known.

This does not mean that things would not ever change. Plans can be looked at and modified appropriately in accordance with feedback, in an organic process of fitting pasts, presents, and futures together in an informative way. The idea of ‘progress’ needs to be dumped in favour of an enlightened process of assessment. Plans could make futures more modest instead of always increasing heights and densities to suit developers who always want to squeeze more and more out of less and less.

The irrational approach of surprise projects appearing in the public eye after having gone through countless negotiations to finally get ‘the nod,’ needs to stop. Futures can be and need to be planned properly, and enforced. One could argue that even now, if the sloppy plans that we currently have were properly enforced with the rigour needed, things would be a little better than they are; but the world is not like that. Planners have become over-viewers; sometimes getting involved in the planning of the projects that they are approving. Processes and systems get very messy. What is required is a properly planned future, and the rigour to enforce this. It means that planners have to make commitments and to stick to them; then the public will not have to endure the surprise we see reported in the news.

If planners are unable to do this, then the profession might as well be abolished, because the world will not need planners, just good negotiators and spin doctors. These artful dodgers could not give us outcomes that are any worse than those we see today: just look at our ‘award winning’ housing developments and our cities and towns, and despair.