Workshop meeting - meet the Consultants

At our Last meeting we started to get a little more into the physical aspects of the site and how its redevelopment may interact with the community in a number of ways.

Its important to note at this point the purpose is to develop a "planning instrument" for the disposal and development guidelines of this site. If you are a little uncertain what a planning instrument is or means I suggest strongly you have a look at that link just back there on Planning instrument.

To begin the conversation some proposals of what may happen under the existing draft of the planning instrument was presented and our feedback on this sought. Since its hard to talk about the concrete with only the abstract a diagram of possible sorts of buildings (based on their current assumptions) was presented. Its important to note that this figure represents one of the possibilities that could occur if the planning instrument was formed and developers designed buildings of this form. It is not a specification.



The above diagram represents potential land uses and some preservation
of heritage. The original Cottage is there between M and K buildings
(which are proposed as
residential) and some of the original nurses quarters
integrated into K building.

Allied health services are suggested for the 'eastern end' of the site near High St.


We discussed

• Land use
• Urban design and public realm
• Traffic and transport

I felt that the subjects were not covered in depth (as perhaps they can't be especially given our 3 hour schedule) and that the planners did not have a grasp of the subtleties of the region. I think this is a critical failure in the process.

In this post I'll discuss a few of the issues with perhaps a focus on Traffic. Perhaps because I was most interested in this component or perhaps because I saw this as the only area where there was any possibility of making a real difference to the process. I'm not sure.

Land use:
The existing focus of the redevelopment is on providing community benefits and economic replacement to Southport to replace the loss of the Hospital from that site. Currently a mixture of:

• allied health services
• residential accomodation
• green space
• community space

is envisaged.

We discussed the locations of things and it was raised in the discussions that placing the allied health towards the west and the residential towards the east would perhaps be better. This is because

1. On the eastern end of the site is the top of the hill that the Existing multi storey GC Hospital building is sited on. This would afford fantastic views and be prime residential locations.
2. Placing the residential areas on the Eastern end would site the allied health services slightly further away from the busy High St access points (easing access congestion)
3. It would provide some separation between the existing residential areas to the west of the site and place the allied health services in the middle of the site.
4. Give the people living in the residential area closer to Southrport and giving easier pedestrian access to Southport, the park and libraries across towards Lawson, Suter and then Scarbourgh Sts.
   

Traffic:
The point in discussion was how to give access to the site to minimize the disturbance to the traffic flow and to maximize the access. To discuss this in a meaningful way I'd like to include a small map segment or two to show the area. Locals to Southport may have varying knowledge of the streets and so rather than take anything for granted ...

The site is bounded by High St (well really little High St, but that's another matter), Nerang St and Queen St. As it stands right now, access to that site (pretend there is nothing there right now) has some restrictions.


Currently there is no right turn into the site from Nerang St or High St.

High St is currently (and for the foreseeable future) to be a high volume street as it is one of the main access routes from and to Smith St and hence the Motorway. As it stands there is no right turn into the site from High St (meaning you can not turn across the traffic). This makes sence at so many levels.

Nerang St: because of the light rail development (and probably sensible as well) there is no right turn into the site from Nerang St either.


So this means that only Queen St gives a 'back street' access where people can turn in to the site from either direction.



This raises some interesting issues which I think need to be thought through but have not. For instance:

• Queen St is a bit of a bottleneck at the moment with traffic coming from the eastern (broardwater) end, but mainly turning right into High St, left into Ferry Road. The smaller amount that attempts to get to Nerang St by continuing along must run the gauntlet of the blockages that exist along the remainder of Queen St. This comes from people accessing the medical services along Queen, Allamander Private Hospital, as well as those wanting to continue through to Nerang
• Allamander Private Hospital will be undergoing changes in the next few years, so any thought of planning this needs to take that into consideration

This leads me to wonder if making access into the site from Queen St the same as above, being no right turn across the traffic.

This would reduce the obstruction to traffic caused by vehicles entering the site (while vehicles wanting to turn right have to give way to traffic moving east along Queen) and make for a single direction flow of traffic within the site, reducing congestion within the site.

Food for thought?

Well that's enough for this post. I'll follow up more soon.

Gold Coast Hospital (Southport)

The Gold Coast Hospital site is located in (more or less) the center of Southport. From this map below you can see that its close to the Broadwater and just two blocks from the CBD of Southport (which I would argue is centered around Scarborough St and Nerang St with perhaps a bias towards the Short St end of town).



As you can see better below its a neat little triangle of buildings bounded by Nerang, Queen and Little High St. There is (often overlooked) a small street between High St and the hospital called "Little High St", and so I've marked this in below on the red line.



Some time ago work started on the New Gold Coast Hospital out at the Griffith University site. This new hospital was intended to replace the main hospital functions. Perhaps even before work started on the new hospital, there has been the question of:

what do we do with the old hospital?

Well it seems that every man and his dog has some sort of interest in this site and what may or should happen to it.

Back in 2011 the Queensland State Government sought the participation of the community in what would be best to do with the site. To this end a survey was undertaken and a Community Reference Group was formed from interested "qualified" members of the community.

I happen to be one of the members of the CRG.

In keeping with my role in the CRG (and one of the selection criteria) I am writing here to inform the community as to what each of the stages of this processes are and to work towards making this process more 'transparent'.

According to the documentation we were given when we started the CRG

The role of the CRG is to:

• enhance communication between the steering committee and the local community
• increase community and stakeholder understanding about planning processes
• enhance the steering committee’s understanding of community issues
• encourage community partnerships.

CRG members will be expected to:

• represent the interests of the wider community
• share information with the wider community
• attend and participate in meetings and workshops as required
• provide input and recommendations to DLGP on local issues
• comply with the final terms of reference.

One of the interesting points which emerged from the first meeting (and of which I had not till that time seen) was that a Newsletter had been distributed to the public outlining some of the proposals for the redevelopment of the site. I have made a copy of that available here if you're interested in reading it.

Fundamentally at that stage of "planning" the State government had 3 proposals of what could be done with the site. These are outlined in more detail in that above document, but essentially are:

scenario 1

scenario 2

scenario 3

To this point in time we have not actually discussed any preferred options at the group, as much as discussed options. Among the points which have emerged so far are:

• Southport is in dire need of economic support as a town center
• The hospital has a staffing level of approximately 3000 staff. Including patients this represents a lot of people who were once coming into town and after the site moves may not be. Some consideration needs to be given to the economic implications of this
• Some of the buildings have heritage value for the township
• There seems to be interest in this site which has not come through to our group via the formal channels.

I will update this on this blog as more information comes to hand (and as more time comes to hand), all these blog entries can be found with the label "GCH CRG"

Hinze Dam Stage 3

Just the other day I was listening to ABC radio and heard some GCCC representative (didn't catch the person's name) making a point about how the Stage 3 of the Hinze Dam had now doubled the water supply for the Gold Coast.

Well you know, its sort of got some basis in fact but at the end of the day its what the most optimistic would call "spin doctoring". Another way of looking at it is that its just not true.

In fact the Stage 3 of Hinze dam has only added something like 12% to the water supply of the Gold Coast.

So lets have a quick look at the facts. From the SEQWater site dedicated to the project one can find out fairly quickly some basic facts:

• Completed in 1976, Stage 1 of the Hinze Dam provided a storage capacity of 42,400 million litres,
• Stage 2 in 1989 increased this to 161,070 million liters.
• The Stage 3 project will raise the Hinze Dam embankment wall from 93.5 meters to 108.5 metres, providing a total storage capacity of 309,700 million liters.

So from basic maths one would simplistically think that 309.7 divided by 161 is pretty nearly double (without splitting too many GCCC hairs) The devil of course is in the details.

background facts:

Stepping back for a moment consider that a dam is just a blockage in a river to prevent the water that flows down the river from escaping. The intention is to trap that water for ourselves, to give us a water supply. Clearly then its the stream flow of the river which is most significant here rather than just how high the wall is on the dam. It may seem obvious but building a dam on a river which has no flow will not magically produce a wonderful water supply.

Because reality is not simple. there are other ways water gets out of the dam than by the pipes we put in to slurp out the water trapped by the dam. These include:

• evaporation losses from the surface
• seepage of water out from the soil into the area
• legislated environmental flows to keep some of that river flowing (noone wants to see the Nerang river turn into a dry river bed for example).

From my research (in my Masters of Environmental Science) I found that a "rule of thumb", in Northern Australia is that: the maximum utilization of average flows that may reasonably expect from a dam is around 50% to 75%. So having a bigger container to hold the water is not the significant issue, its how much water flows that counts.


So its not only about how big the dam is, but how much water it can yield. From the points above its clear that how much we can get out depends on how much goes and minus how much we loose while its sitting around. Seems obvious when you think of it that way.

With respect to evaporation one of the major factors is surface area. So if you fill the dam more, then as the water goes up its sides the area of the surface of the dam increases; which means evaporation increases.

The diagram here shows the sort of change in the width of the water surface as water fills a channel which gets wider as it goes up (like rivers tend to do).

As it happens back some years ago some engineers were engaged to determine what sort of yield we can expect.

During the drought crisis of 2003 it was demonstrated quite reasonably that we can rely on the Hinze dam (then at Stage 2) to cope with a yield of about 161 Million liters of water per day (but it was going down quite fast without rain to keep topping it up).

During that drought we started with the Hinze Dam (then at Stage 2) at 100% capacity, but the water usage of the Gold Coast brought the dam levels down to a smidge below 30% with just one missed wet season. Red warning lights were going off on the GCCC dashboard and emergency meetings were called.

Now if we had had Stage 3 in place back at that point the only thing that would have changed is possibly just how much water was in the dam, the rate at which the dam emptied would not have changed.

Its possible that the rains of January 2001 would have topped up the storage to greater than what the Stage 2 held, but looking at that graph, not much. Either way, you can see that as soon as those wet season rains stopped the levels of the dam started to drop, and fast too.

So since the amount of water available is a factor of the river flow, not the height one would not expect that the yield of Hinze Dam could provide much more water with simply increasing storage capacity.

In fact the Engineering analysis of the Hinze dam showed that the yield of the dam in Stage 3 rose from (an estimated) 191Million liters / day to 215 Million liters / day or an increase of 24Ml per day or an increase by about 12% Nothing like double is it.

I am certain that this information should now be well known within the GCCC.

For instance , this is the table of data presented to the Waterfutures Advisory Committee by the GCCC, when they were considering the water supply options for the Gold Coast. There is some variation (depending on who did the study) as well as effects on available water depending on assumptions of the effectiveness of water restrictions.

Summary:

Ultimately I think that its important that representatives of the Council present the facts to us about the planning, about the state of our water supply and about what the real results of changes are. Putting "spin" (nice word for bullshit) on things as critical to the community as water supply should not be entertained. Misleading the community is not something we should tolerate in our Local Government. If (alternatively) the speaker had not the faintest clue about what they were talking about then perhaps they should not be in that position either.

The population of the Gold Coast is growing fast, and in the time since the 2002 drought crisis the population has grown from 425,000 to over 591,000. Thats an increase of over 28%

Since that time we've also gained the Logan Pipeline and the Desalination plant, lets hope its enough for the next drought

Gold Coast: "Gray" Space - and an ambitious Vision for Urban planning

Gold Coast: Shut-up about “Green” space – just for a moment.

- by Ken Sekiya

With the rising awareness to Environmental issues, the awareness of benefits to allocating “Green” spaces is rising. This has led to much urban development to allocate “Green” spaces for leisure and recreation use.
Besides the Local-use, “Green” spaces also serve to be Tourist attractions – becoming a potential space to showcase local flora and fauna; space for cultural installations; and space for cultural activities.
“Green” spaces may also serve to be a “beacon” for attracting people, providing opportunities for Food & Beverage businesses, surrounding the area.
However, with this “Green” mentality has led compromise in Urban planning – The use and allocation of other forms of space, such as “Gray” spaces.

“Gray” spaces – or better defined as constructed pathways and concrete parks – is often compromised to allow for larger shop spaces. However, the benefits of “Gray” spaces are very much understated in planning: which may contribute to sense of Safety, Business exposure and expansion, Leisure space, and space for Cultural activities. 

“Gray” space is often viewed in the same manner as road traffic: space for movement from A to B. This view, however, ignores the need for traffic to stop and Window-shop – providing opportunities for purchases to be considered – instead obliging potential customers to move-on. This view also ignores the need for “Personal space”, where wider “Gray” spaces provide individuals more freedom of movement, and sense of safety. 

Furthermore, to limit the use of “Gray” space, for the purpose of Pedestrian traffic limits the use of space by businesses to provide an Outdoor experience – such as outdoor seating for Restaurants and Cafes; and for use of space for Street markets; small individual activities; and large-scale cultural activities, such as Parades. Wider “Gray” spaces may also encourage use of non-motorized vehicles, such as Bicycles.  

However, despite Gold Coast’s advantage of being a “low-density” city, urban planning have been compressed and limited. Potentially – strategic allocation of “Gray” spare can be viewed as strategic tourism and business investment: rather than a narrow-minded view as “wasted” space. 

A Gold Coast-specific example of relatively good "Gray" space planning, is the development of Surfers Paradise's new Esplanade, which has received good feedback by locals and tourists alike.
Such, “spoilt” use of space – for “Green” and “Gray” usage, should also be seriously considered to develop a unique image, unlike that existing in Cities across the rest of the Asia-Pacific regions.
Especially when considering that our major Tourist markets, in Asia, are tourists from high-density cities. Hence, there being an opportunity for the contrasted use of space from other major Australian and Asian cities that will give an element of attraction that will be both a key factor for establishing a unique image for the Gold Coast.
This can also be further enhanced, if Gold Coast plans to develop as a “Cultural” and/or “Academic” capital of Queensland (if not Australia). In essence, such ambitious urban planning can be envisioned, as planning to make the Gold Coast the “Paris” of the Asia-Pacific region.

Other benefits will also include, lowering of travel distance to local businesses, closing the gap between Gold Coast’s diverse cultural centres, and diversifying the Gold Coast – making the city more attractive to justify multiple visits by domestic and international tourists.

It will be “costly” indeed, and take time, but Napoleon’s Paris wasn’t cheap or completed over-night either. But with a strong leader – or group of leaders – and Local support, the Gold Coast can develop easier than the manner that Paris was planned and developed, where Napoleon didn’t have popular support for his ambitions.

Gold Coast :– development here needs to be more widespread - capitalising the wide-open sky and space that we appreciate - contrasted to the manner that urban development is occurring at the moment: concentrated in Tweeds/Burleigh, Broadbeach, Surfers, Southport, and Runaway Bay.
Gold Coast needs to show that it is a “City” worth being based in, and visiting – not a big patch of sub-urban housing for Brisbanites. 

More about the Author: 

Guest writer for "Community Urban Planning" - may not necessarily reflect the view of other Authors.

Proud Gold Coast born and bred - over 20 years - and several years elsewhere - currently based in Surfers Paradise. 

Twitter on https://twitter.com/#!/ki_sekiya

Home-Blog on http://kisekiya.blogspot.com/

water: planning for sustainability

The attention of the general public (as a group, not individuals) is generally focused on the present, but that should not be true of governance. One of the reasons for planning is to attempt to forecast issues and design around them, this is among other things the role of the town planners.

Water (as we all know) comes from the tap, and as long as it flows everyone ignores it. However it was (or so it seems to me) just a short while ago we were in the grip of a serious drought and water restrictions.

At that time (if you weren't yet living here) we experienced a drought where the normally regular summer high rainfalls failed to arrive. This resulted in a very worrying drop in the Hinze Dam levels to around 30% capacity:

As you can see from the data in the above chart the November 2001 through to Feb 2002 rains failed to arrive. Strangely this was regarded as the 2002 2003 drought (even though 2003 rainfalls were more or less normal). However people were (quite rightly) concerned about this as it was the first time that such a situation had occurred. Importantly though, it wasn't the first time such a weather pattern occurred.

Had we then had low rainfall for the 2007 year (I wrote my masters thesis on this in 2005~6) we would have been in a similar situation or perhaps worse. Looking at the last hundred and something years of data, we see rainfall in Southport and Springbrook (where the Hinze Dam catchment area is) like this:

Quite seasonal, and quite a significant amount of rain between Jan and April, but not much between June and Sept. The vertical bars on that graph represent the ranges of rainfalls, and the blue and green lines the average. You can see that 0 mm of rain in Jan Feb and Nov are not unheard of, so nix out climate change having an influence here ... Fundamentally this is about population growth, exceeding the carrying capacity of the existing paradigm and a lack of planning.

People started worrying and the Gold Coast City Council (amid a backdrop of hysterical media) succumbed to pressures and signed up to a pipeline to Logan to get some 35 Mega-liters of water per day from Logan to supplement the 180 Mega-liters per day being drawn from the Hinze (and to a lesser extent Little Nerang) Dam.

The GCCC responce also included an examination of alternatives which included the Coomera Pimpama Water futures plan. The Council was thinking in terms of Business As Usual (BAU) and obtaining more water (we always have to have more don't we) and began looking at alternatives like:

• getting more water from Wivenhoe (as if they have too much for Brisane's expanding thirst)
• pulling in more from a 'water pipeline'
• desalination (ask someone who lives in Tugun about that)
  

The council produced a number of documents suggesting that water demand would go up like this:



And offering suggestions on how to cope with this such as:

I however took a different point of view and thought that (basing my views on "Ecological Modernisation" concepts) that we could achieve more with less by moving into the modernisation process rather than just doing "Business as Usual"

As the population of the GC community is expanding, I undertook an examination of the water needs of the community via both the BAU method and looking at what could be done with a two pronged approach. 1) the inclusion of water efficiency in the home and 2) the suppliment of community water with rainwater tanks. Note that water efficiency is not just the simplistic (and unpalatable) "demand management" strategy where you use showers which produce an annoying mist or give people egg timers to suggest they have shorter showers.

I factored in a very modest 1% per annum reduction in community water requirement and I also added another "what if" situation of the rain water tanks. Factoring this in I came up with the following projection of water demand.




So, following the GCCC model of Business as Usual the water needs of the community grew exactly with the community population (as they projected) to nearly 480 Mega-liters a day, while the use of modernization principles to reduce water demands brought a growth to 250 Mega-liters per day but with a much slower peak. Adding in the water tanks with modernisation brought the overall use to a point lower than 2001 usage figures even with a population increase from 450,000 to over 1,100,000.

So there really is potential for the community here to cope with population growth via planning and modernisation.

community spirit

Crime seems to be prominently reported in the media recently and with the focus on the city remaining the old "business as usual" it makes how wonder how you can have "Famous for fun" and not expect this sort of outcome? ...

Well assuming you are't some sort of tea-totalling religious prude who is "shocked" when people are uncouth... This is exactly why long term locals don't see much good in the push to encourage "Party Party Party come to the coast and let your hair down".

Discussion focuses on responding to the shooting of a police officer by "building a community", so I ask how can you build a community in a place where transience is high and people do not live and work anywhere near the same locations.

The Gold Coast maybe a huge city, but there is a case to argue that we are becoming a satellite suburb for Brisbane.

services: or the lack thereof

For a city with the population of the Gold Coast we seem to have less services than one would expect in a capital city. This may seem to be an "of course" sort of statement, but given that the population of the Gold Coast is now at about what the Population of Brisbane once was (and perhaps is home to many who work in Brisbane) it seems an oversight.

One of the things which Dick Smith points out in his discussions of population growth is the expansion of need for services such as Police Services.

Perhaps the current spike in armed holdups (and here too)on the Gold Coast is a poignant reminder that such needs are being overlooked in the community?