UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A perspective on urban waterfront redevelopment in the Pacific Rim Hewson, Willian David 1995

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1995-0605.pdf [ 54.12MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0099014.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0099014-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0099014-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0099014-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0099014-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0099014-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0099014-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

A PERSPECTIVE ON URBAN WATERFRONT  REDEVELOPMENT  IN THE PACIFIC RIM by WILLIAM DAVID HEWSON B.A., University of Western Ontario, 1991  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS (PLANNING) in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES SCHOOL OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING  We accept this thesis as conforming '^to^the feflui^ed ^fand^d;  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1995 ® William David Hewson, 1995  In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at The University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his or her representatives.  It is understood that copying or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department of Graduate Studies School of Community and Regional Planning The University of British Columbia 2075 Westbrook Place Vancouver, B. C. Canada V6T 1W5  Date:  September 1995  ABSTRACT Once thriving Pacific Rim urban waterfronts are now abandoned, their functions left obsolete by technological changes and industrial shifts. Formerly the economic heartbeat of the city, these properties again have the potential to revitalize the economies of cities and to solve 20th century social problems. Urban waterfronts are being redeveloped to address not only local and regional problems but to serve national interests as well. The process of achieving an appropriate balance of land uses to attain these goals is costly, complex and controversial. The purpose of this study is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the process of waterfront development in the Pacific Rim. The objectives are: (1) to examine the economic, technological, social and political forces that shaped the Pacific Rim urban waterfront; (2) to evaluate the public policies, goals and objectives, and the effectiveness of the planning process, management structure, and development strategies used to achieve these objectives and goals; (3) to examine the effectiveness of involving the community in the planning process; and, (4) to evaluate the management structure and planning process. This study was conducted through an extensive literature review; site visits to Sydney, Brisbane, Newcastle, San Francisco and Vancouver; personal interviews; a comprehensive analysis of planning and development documentation, government publications, and articles in newspapers, professional magazines, journals and marketing brochures. The primary conclusions of this study are: (1) community involvement in the planning process at the earliest possible stages is vital; (2) the public planning and approval process is protracted, cumbersome, expensive, inflexible and inefficient; (3) the planning department must take control and assume the leadership role in the process; (4) there are four fundamental land use components to all urban waterfront development: commercial and retail, residential, parks and open space, cultural and community benefits;  ii  (5) the three most critical requirements of urban waterfront development are public access, open space and housing; (6) affordable and social housing is a key ingredient; (7) the trend for financing community amenities and public infrastructure is to have the developer pay; (8) the unique character and heritage of the waterfront needs to be examined before making decisions to remove waterfront structures; and (9) development goals and objectives must be established through a collaborative planning process to reflect the community needs. Otherwise the project will fail.  iii  T A B L E OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT  ii  TABLE OF CONTENTS  iv  LIST OF TABLES  vii  LIST OF FIGURES  viii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  x  CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.0 Context 1.1 Purpose and Objectives 1.2 Research Conclusions 1.3 Organization, Structure and Methodology 1.4 Limitations of the Study  1 1 2 3 5 7  CHAPTER TWO EVOLUTION OF URBAN WATERFRONTS IN THE PACIFIC RIM . . 9 2.0 Introduction 9 2.1 Waterfront Morphology . . 10 2.2 Death of the Traditional Waterfront 14 2.3 Urban Restructuring 17 2.4 Rise and Decline of Pacific Rim Waterfronts 19 2.4.0 Introduction 19 2.4.1 Sydney, Australia 19 2.4.2 Newcastle, Australia 22 2.4.3 Brisbane, Australia 23 2.4.4 San Francisco, USA 25 2.4.5 Yokohama, Japan 28 2.4.6 Vancouver, Canada 28 Coal Harbour and the Central Waterfront 28 False Creek 30 2.5 Evaluation and Conclusions 32 CHAPTER THREE A NEW ERA FOR URBAN WATERFRONTS 3.0 Introduction  35 35  3.1  SOUTH BANK - Brisbane 3.1.0 Urban and Regional Issues 3.1.1 Planning for South Bank- 1983-1990 3.1.2 South Bank Land Use & Design Concept  36 36 42 49  3.2  HONEYSUCKLE: Newcastle 3.2.0 Urban and Regional Issues 3.2.1 Planning for Honeysuckle-1986-1992 3.2.2 Honeysuckle Land Use & Design Concept  54 54 60 63  iv  3.3  CITY 3.3.0 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5  WEST URBAN STRATEGY - Sydney Urban and Regional Issues Planning for City West - 1989 City West Development Concept Pyrmont-Ultimo Precinct Masterplan Eveleigh Precinct Masterplan The Bays and Central Rail Yards Masterplans  66 66 73 78 81 93 98  3.4  MINATO MIRAI 21 - Yokohama 3.4.0 Urban and Regional Issues 3.4.1 Planning for MM21 - 1965-1983 3.4.2 M M 21 Land Use & Design Concept  101 101 105 109  3.5  MISSION BAY - San Francisco 3.5.0 Urban and Regional Issues 3.5.1 Planning for Mission Bay 1981-1990 3.5.2 Mission Bay Land Use & Design Concept  121 121 126 131  3.6  PACIFIC PLACE, COAL HARBOUR & THE BAYSHORE GARDENS Vancouver 3.6.0 Urban and Regional Issues 3.6.1 Planning for False Creek 1969-1988 3.6.2 Planning for Coal Harbour 1970-1985 3.6.3 Goals, Objectives and Policies 3.6.4 Planning for Pacific Place 3.6.5 Pacific Place Land Use & design Concept 3.6.6 Planning for Coal Harbour and The Bayshore Gardens 3.6.7 Coal Harbour and The Bayshore Gardens Land Use & Design Concept  139 139 142 145 146 153 156 163 167  CHAPTER FOUR EVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS 4.0 Introduction 4.1 Image and Urban Design 4.2 Heritage and Cultural Potential 4.3 Goals and Objectives 4.4 Land Use 4.5 Jurisdictional Conflicts 4.6 Economic Costs and Benefits 4.7 Community Participation and the Planning Process 4.8 Recommendations for the Pacific Rim 4.9 Topics for Further Research  181 181 183 187 190 195 201 207 217 227 228  BIBLIOGRAPHY  243  APPENDIX 1 Land Use Summary  256  APPENDIX 2 South Bank Data  267  v  APPENDIX 3 Minato Mirai 21 Data  268  APPENDIX 4 Honeysuckle Data  270  APPENDIX 5 Mission Bay Data  272  APPENDIX 6 City West Data  275  APPENDIX 7 Pacific Place, Coal Harbour & The Bayshore Gardens Data  277  vi  LIST OF TABLES TABLE  PAGE DESCRIPTION  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  Early Port Development Model Comparison Common Waterfront Development Objectives Pacific Rim Waterfront Development Objectives Land Use Summary South Bank Development Objectives South Bank Development Guidelines MM21 Third Sector Participants MM21 Roles of Major Developers Regional Objectives Honeysuckle Development Objectives Honeysuckle Planning Principles Development Objectives and Principles Mission Bay Design Guidelines Mission Bay Community Benefits Mission Bay Development Plans: Historical Summary Regional Development Strategies City West Development Objectives . . . City West Development Principles City West Urban Design Principles North False Creek Development Plans: Historical Summary Central Area Development Objectives Development Objectives and Policies Policy Broadsheet Design Guidelines Pacific Place Community Facilities Coal Harbour and The Bayshore Gardens Community Facilities  vii  34 193 194 256 267 267 268 269 270 270 271 272 273 273 274 275 275 276 276 277 278 279 280 281 282  LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE  PAGE DESCRIPTION  3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-5a 3-6 3-7 3-8 3-9 3-10 3-11 3-12 3-13 3-14 3-15 3-16 3-17 3-18 3-19 3-20 3-21 3-22 3-23 3-24 3-25 3-26 3-27 3-28 3-29 3-30 3-31 3-32 3-33 3-34 3-35 3-36 3-37 3-38 3-39 3-40 3-41  View of Central Brisbane South Bank 1984 South Bank Masterplan View of South Bank Parklands South Bank Parklands Site Plan Parklands Map Legend View of Newcastle Honeysuckle Masterplan Civic Heritage Precinct Employment & Mixed-Use Precincts Carrington & Wickham Residential Precincts Marina Development Site View of Sydney & the City West Area City West Development Precincts View of Pyrmont Peninsula Pyrmont-Ultimo Development Concept Pyrmont Peninsula Masterplan Precincts Pyrmont Bay Masterplan Darling Harbour Site Plan View of Darling Harbour & Maritime Museum Model of Pyrmont Bay & Sydney Casino Complex Pyrmont Point Masterplan Pyrmont Point Concept Model of Saunders Street View of Eveleigh Precinct Eveleigh Precinct Concept View of The Bays Precinct The Bays Land Use Zones MM21 & Yokohama Region MM21 Land Use Zones & Agreement Area MM21 Development Model MM21 Masterplan View of MM21 Development Area PACIFICO & Museum of Art National Auditorium Landmark Tower Yokohama Block 24 Concept Block 24 Land Use Block 24 Retail Plaza & Station Core Atrium Mission Bay & Region View of Mission Bay Development Area Mission Bay Concept viii  37 43 50 51 53 53a 55 64 67 68 69 70 72 80 82 83 84 86 87 88 89 91 92 94 . 95 97 99 100 102 108 110 112 113 115 116 117 118 119 120 123 127 132  3-42 3-43 3-44 3-45 3-46 3-47 3-48 3-49 3-50 3-51 3-52 3-53 3-54 3-55 3-56 3-57 3-58 3-59 3-60 3-61 3-62  Mission Bay Land uses Mission Creek Park Mission Bay Residential Street View of Vancouver Peninsula Pacific Place Concept Pacific Place Masterplan International Village David Lam Park Concept View of Coal Harbour Development Site View of Bayshore Site and Coal Harbour Coal Harbour Masterplan The Marina Neighbourhood Masterplan The Marina Neighbourhood Concept Parks & Community Facilities Burrard Landing Concept Commercial Precinct & Hotel Burrard Landing Masterplan Marina & Performing Arts Centre Bayshore Gardens Masterplan Bayshore Gardens Development Model Bayshore Gardens Concept  134 135 137 140 157 158 160 162 164 165 168 170 171 172 174 175 • 176 177 178 179 180  ix  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT It is impossible to acknowledge all of those who have contributed so much of their time and energy to help me with my research. I was continually surprised by the willingness of everyone I met to take time from hectic schedules to open doors to me. I made many friendships along the way and will never forget the many individuals who helped me, not only professionally and academically, but personally as well. There are those individuals, however, who went the extra mile for me and I would be remiss if I did not pay tribute to them. To Guy Gibson, Graham Robinson, Robert Zullo, Julie Rees and Andrew Cappie-Wood who made me feel at home while I was "down under." To Christopher Degenhardt, Larry Wood, Julie Gonzalez-Burns and Alec Bash who welcomed me to their city by the Bay, where I truly did leave my heart. To Larry Beasley, Michael Geller, Geoff Harold, Robert Fung and Blair Hagkull all of whom took the time to provide me the Canadian perspective. To Fumio Takagi and Nobuya Suzuki, who, despite a significant language barrier, never failed to take the time to help me. To my advisors, Alan Artibise and Tom Hutton, without whose patience and guidance this would never have happened. I will never forget the "Loons." To Sophie, Lenore and Steve, my companions and friends, whose support and encouragement helped me through those midnight hours. Finally, to my family who steadfastly supported me and without whose patience and understanding, my task would have been much harder. And especially to my wife, who bore the burden of maintaining the home-front during my many travels and late nights.  x  CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.0  CONTEXT Once thriving, lively centres of trade and commerce, urban waterfronts have fallen into disuse  and disrepair as economic and technological changes have occurred throughout the Pacific Rim. These abandoned and neglected waterfronts offer the opportunity for cities to resolve existing 20th century social and economic problems. Planners and politicians realize that the same economic forces that caused waterfront decline can be used to revitalize the waterfront. Over the past 20 years, waterfront redevelopment within the Pacific Rim has emerged as a powerful tool for improving the quality of life for the inner-city, achieving economic and social objectives, preserving historic districts, and reclaiming obsolete railway and industrial lands (Mikicich, 37). The establishment of a large, higher order, service-based economy in the city core has created demand for inner-city housing, commercial space and public amenities. In particular, the redevelopment of urban waterfronts has provided new opportunities for affordable housing in the core areas of the city. Housing, shops, offices, parks, marinas and cultural activities can flourish on the waterfront, providing vibrant areas and attracting the community back to the water's edge. These 'mega-projects' are often worth billions of dollars to the economy and provide thousands of new jobs, new housing, and a variety of recreational and community facilities. As a result, cities are making significant investment in new infrastructure, community amenities and other development incentives to stimulate private investment. Now, because of the improved image and the development opportunities offered by these highly desirable waterfront sites, "The urban waterfront has become a sought-after piece of downtown real estate [and] a waterfront address now carries a certain level of prestige" (Mikicich, 38). This has provoked intensive land use competition between business and social interest groups, local area residents, planners and developers, and various levels of government.  1  2  Throughout the Pacific Rim, waterfront redevelopments are serving not only local and regional interests, but also national interests such as employment strategies that focus on advanced technologies, urban revitalization and consolidation, decentralization of government services, urban restructuring, and transportation improvements. 1.1  PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES The objectives of this study are:  1. To analyze the rise and decline of urban waterfronts in the Pacific Rim with the aim of clearly establishing those forces that caused the decline and abandonment; to define the process of change; to examine the evolution of the "maritime quarter;" to identify any pattern in the process of decline, thereby allowing cities to be proactive in redevelopment at an early stage. 2. To compare land use activities, development concepts and community objectives to decide if there are any commonalities; to determine those objectives, uses and activities that have the greatest demand and must be part of the waterfront. In essence, the intent is to determine the highest and best uses for the property. The results of this analysis will provide guidance to planning departments, developers, government agencies, architects and urban designers when developing land use objectives and activities for waterfronts. Once the developer understands the objectives, activities and land uses that are acceptable to the community, the time and cost for planning and community participation can be significantly decreased. 3. To examine the planning process and the community's involvement in it. The aim is to determine the optimal process for involving the community and to examine the effectiveness of community involvement in influencing the final land uses, development mix, community benefits and design; to decide if the effort and benefits are worth the cost or if it is simply a public relations act by the city at the developer's expense.  3 4. To examine the management and control structure used to guide the project through the complicated development and approval process, from concept to final approval.  1.2  R E S E A R C H CONCLUSIONS Each of the ports studied began its rise in the late 1700s or early 1800s. During the first  quarter of a century, while the cities struggled for survival, the ports tried to establish themselves as safe havens. Over the following 125 years the ports expanded and firmly established themselves as major centres of trade and commerce in the Pacific Rim. The cities became important trading partners, linked by the common bond of maritime trade. By the mid-1950s the decline of these ports had begun. Over the next quarter of a century, the rapid technological advancements in transportation technology, port operations and cargo handling sealed the fate of these once thriving ports. Linked to this decline was the process of urban restructuring. As the port functions decreased and relocated so, too, did the surrounding industries and manufacturing districts that had built up surrounding the ports. The combined effect was to leave behind large areas of abandoned, obsolete, or underutilized warehouse districts, industrial complexes and rail yards. Essential to bringing the community back to the water's edge is the provision of easy and abundant public access and large expanses of open space that provide opportunities for recreational activities. For a development to be successful, creating the proper image is as critical as creating the optimum land use mix. Waterfronts often possess unique opportunities to reuse older structures. Examining the heritage and character of the waterfront is necessary before making any decision to remove waterfront structures. Creating an active, lively and diverse waterfront is an essential component. Community involvement in the planning process at the earliest possible stages is vital to the success of the project. Failure to do so will cause delay, add cost, and create needless animosity between the public, the developers and planners. A major criticism of the planning and approval  process is that it is lengthy, cumbersome, expensive, inflexible and inefficient. The community participation process must be effective and efficient and the process must result in a plan or design that works. The planning department has to take control and assume the leadership role in the process. Managing the planning and development process for these large developments consumes significant amounts of time, money and staff. Using existing planning department resources often exceeds budgets and staff availability and municipal governments can no longer bear the cost alone. The current trend is to pass the cost of additional staff and the task of involving the community in the planning process on to the developer either directly or indirectly. Cooperation between all levels of government, the public, and the private sector is essential if the projects are to proceed with the least delay and expense. There are four fundamental land use components to all urban waterfront development: 1) commercial and retail, 2) residential, 3) parks and open space, and 4) cultural and community benefits. A residential component is crucial in providing a large, diverse inner-city population. Residents are essential in contributing to the life and vitality of the city, stimulating an active waterfront, and maintaining the economic viability of new retail/commercial endeavours. Resolve the issue of housing and affordability at the start of the planning process. The current trend is to include affordable and social housing as a key ingredient of land use in any waterfront development. Given the economic constraints and the complex jurisdictional framework involved with waterfront development, the public sector has played a major role in the development process. The role has varied geographically due to the involvement of different levels of government, responsibilities of public agencies, and project organization. What is common to all publicly sponsored waterfront redevelopments is the use of the public development powers to achieve broader social and economic objectives. The trend, however, for financing community amenities and public infrastructure is to have the developer pay for most of these improvements either directly or by  5 exacting development fees. Development goals and objectives are, by necessity, the first and most critical step in the planning process. The goals and objectives form the basis of the Master Development Plan (MDP) and ultimately decide the land use. Development goals and objectives must be established through a collaborative planning process and must reflect community needs. The city and its citizens must clearly define and express their goals for the waterfront well before any preliminary design starts. Those cities that began the development process without any clearly defined set of goals and objectives experienced significant difficulty in designing a development mix acceptable to the community. 1.3  ORGANIZATION, STRUCTURE AND METHODOLOGY The waterfront profiles in this study were chosen from within the Pacific Rim as few case  studies exist and there has been little examination of waterfront development in this area. The cities are sufficiently similar and interrelated to allow a qualified comparison. Each is a Pacific Rim port metropolis with substantial international connections; each has strong economic connections through trade and tourism; each is connected by substantial transportation links; each is a modern industrial city with a well- developed Western market economy; each is subject to many of the same development pressures and shares the same public concerns over housing, education, transportation, the environment, and quality of life issues; and finally, each of the waterfronts' historical evolution has gone through the same process. The cities, however, differ considerably in their ethnic and cultural backgrounds, although each is strongly influenced by the Asian culture. The waterfront development projects were chosen due to their similarities in historical land use, the size of area being redeveloped, community participation in the planning process and development mix. However, the projects differ significantly in the extent of government intervention and control, land ownership and development policies.  6 The introductory chapter will: 1) define the purpose and objectives of the study, 2) outline the structure of the paper, 3) explain the context of the paper within the field of planning and development, 4) state the limitations imposed on the study; and, 5) provide notes on terminology. The focus of Chapter Two is on the rise and subsequent decline of urban waterfronts in the Pacific Rim. The chapter examines two theoretical models of port development and two models of modern land use and then compares each of the case studies to the models. Finally, the chapter examines the three primary forces of change: industrial shift; advances in transportation, shipping and port technology; and urban restructuring. Chapter Three profiles waterfront projects in the Pacific Rim cities of Yokohama, Brisbane, Sydney, Newcastle, San Francisco and Vancouver. The primary intent is to provide an understanding of the process that evolved to redevelop the waterfront lands. A secondary goal is to examine the broader implications of waterfront redevelopment such as social and economic impacts on the communities. This chapter will highlight common planning issues, policies and strategies, and explore the effect of government policies and development pressures. The analysis will also examine development objectives and goals. The focus will be on analyzing the effectiveness of the redevelopment in achieving these goals and objectives. It will also focus on the role city planning policy and community participation played in influencing the development mix. Finally, it will present unique cultural, socioeconomic and political differences associated with waterfront redevelopment in the Pacific Rim. The analysis examines each project in ten critical areas: 1) management and development control; 2) housing objectives and strategies; 3) urban design; 4) financing; 5) community participation; 6) the planning process; 7) development concept; 8) environmental and ecological sustainability; 9) economic, social and community benefits; and 10) regional and transportation issues.  7 The profile methodology was chosen as an efficient means of conveying both general information about waterfront development and specific detail on selected waterfront projects. Chapter Four provides a brief literature review of the issues, themes and trends; hurdles and obstacles; factors and elements; needs and opportunities; and areas of conflict that are common to waterfront redevelopment. The principles the authors describe are the foundation needed to understand and analyze the complex problems faced when preparing a waterfront revitalization plan. The obstacles that the developers, citizens, government agencies and planning departments have to overcome were evaluated using a framework consisting of eight key areas. The analysis begins by examining the issue of what to do with the abandoned waterfront. Second, the issue of how to address the stigma associated with the abandoned waterfront and turn it into an economically viable area is examined. The analysis then addresses issues associated with the heritage and cultural potential, environmental and ecological impact, conflicting demands over land use, and jurisdictional pressures and constraints. An evaluation is given of the development control and management structure as well as economic considerations related to jobs, community and social benefits, and public and private investment. The analysis ends with an evaluation of the overall effectiveness of community participation in the planning process. The chapter provides a synopsis of the lessons learned from the study and provides some conclusions on the effectiveness of the strategies, policies and principles, and land use objectives critical to the communities' needs. Finally, the chapter makes recommendations on areas where further research would be valuable.  1.4  LIMITATIONS OF T H E STUDY Collection of the data has posed significant problems due to distance, time, cost, and in the  case of Yokohama, language. Site visits to collect data and conduct interviews were made to Sydney,  8 Brisbane and Newcastle in February 1994, and to Vancouver and San Francisco in August 1994. Unfortunately, due to monetary considerations, a site visit to Yokohama could not be conducted. However, excellent data was provided by the planning department, the development corporation and the port authority. These site visits were essential to the study and provided first hand data from interviews with government officials, planners, and developers. Primary data on the projects was obtained from planning documents, master plans, and government policy documents provided by the various planning departments, government agencies and developers. Secondary data was obtained from newspaper clippings, professional magazines and development brochures. Draft copies of the case studies were mailed to the respective city planners, developers and government officials for review and validation of the research. Comments were received and are included in this study. The projects often are still in the development stages or, like Mission Bay, have not started. Therefore, an analysis to compare the original development concept to what was actually built could not be carried out. Thus, the vision of the future community and the quality of life is limited to architectural drawings and marketing brochures. There is also no accurate way of assessing the economic success of the development.  CHAPTER TWO EVOLUTION OF URBAN WATERFRONTS IN THE PACIFIC R I M 2.0  INTRODUCTION A century ago water courses had the same dramatic influence on metropolitan development as  do the modern expressways of today. Oceans, rivers, and lakes provided an important transport medium and early industrial, commercial, and residential settlements developed around natural harbours. Shipping provided the lifeblood of many communities. The existence of the port served as a stimulus to industrial development and attracted trade and manufacturing activity to dockside locations (Slack, 1). The development of urban-industrial waterfronts gradually alienated the city and its inhabitants from the water's edge. The development and expansion of traditional port facilities, the encroachment of railways and expressways, and land-filling, transformed the waterfronts of most cities into industrial ghettos. Development of the central waterfronts in Vancouver and Newcastle best typify this gradual alienation of the city and its inhabitants from the water's edge. Over time, public access to the waterfront became restricted and limited to port-related business. Given the increasing dominance of port and railway operations over the entire waterfront area, higher-order commercial activities lost their economic viability. As these uses relocated, warehousing and other industrial and transportation activities claimed their sites. By the mid-1900s the industrial character of the Pacific Rim urban waterfront was well-entrenched (Mikicich, 32-33). This chapter analyzes the literature to evaluate the forces that shaped the Pacific Rim waterfronts. Further, this chapter describes how these same forces contributed to both the historical rise and subsequent decline of the waterfronts. It indicates that despite the spatial separation and the cultural, political, social and economic differences, each port has followed a similar pattern of  9  10 development and decline. The analysis also provides a detailed historical review of waterfront development and its influence on the general development of the city. It serves to highlight why such large tracts of blighted, underutilized, prime waterfront land exist today. The analysis of two general models provides a framework to describe the historical pattern of urban waterfront development and development of port infrastructure. 2.1  WATERFRONT M O R P H O L O G Y This section reviews two models used to trace the pattern of port and urban waterfront  development. The objective is to establish if these models have application to the evolution of Pacific Rim seaports. Wrenn addresses the stages of waterfront development in a North American framework, while Bird describes a model developed to study British seaport layouts. Bird's model deals only with those factors that affect the layout of the port functions and infrastructure. Wrenn's model is presented in greater depth and deals with both port layout and infrastructure, and the development of the surrounding urban environment and transportation systems. Wrenn's study also examines why some ports managed to adapt and flourish in the face of changing technology while other ports declined. Bird's study of British seaports develops a simplified conceptual model called "Anyport" that was used as a measure to compare the layout of real ports. The study follows the reorganization of the port layout resulting from technological changes in the shipping industry. Bird identified six eras of development. Each era ends with an "epoch-making alteration or addition to the port layout which can usually be dated" (Bird, 7). The end of an era does not necessarily mean the end of the use or working function of the installations built during that period. Bird points out that many facilities and earlier port layouts co-exist with modern functions. The first phase of the model is the primitive port. Here the port develops lineally along the town waterfront until limited by either natural features or town development. Transit sheds developed along the quays while warehouses developed behind. The  11 next two stages consist of development of the quays, marginal quay extension and marginal quay elaboration. These two stages consist of limiting the lineal extension of the port and expanding the harbour to adapt to the increased shipping volume. The town begins to move outward from the port in a semicircular pattern. In the later stages of this period, docks and jetties are developed further away from the original port development. This development is then tied back to the central distribution area by rail lines. The next phase is the dock elaboration. During this period the quays are widened and lengthened, dry docks are added, marginal quay extension continues, and the town continues to expand. A clearly defined port district has developed by this stage. The fifth stage is the simple lineal quayage which is a 20th century development designed to handle all forms of general breakbulk cargo. However, as ships began to specialize as bulk cargo carriers, a sixth era began — specialized quayage designed to service large scale bulk cargoes that require distinctive port handling techniques. The analysis ends with the arrival of containerization. Bird recognizes that, "container cargo berths are a unique case of specialized quayage — the era of container quayage" (Bird, 10). Wrenn's model describes a sequence of stages in the morphology of port-city development (Wrenn, 10). The first stage is the establishment of a safe harbour to locate a small jetty. During this time the ships anchored in the harbour and small boats transferred the cargo to shore. The next three stages involve rapid expansion of the port. Larger piers were built, sea-walls and bulkheads were constructed, warehouses were constructed along the waterfront usually blocking it from the street, wooden piers were replaced by bigger docks, and docking and storage facilities were expanded by filling out into the deeper water. The expansion of the waterfront and its growth as a port facility usually created the need for a port authority or commission to manage shoreline activities. During these early stages of urban development, the waterfront served primarily to support the immediate needs of the resident population.  12 The next two stages involved changing transportation systems which drastically altered the organization of the waterfront and effectively separated the city from its waterfront. With the arrival of the railway, huge amounts of land were required for switching yards and stations. Obtaining the land required infilling more of the waterfront. The waterfront areas became characterized by development of industrial and shipping facilities. The use and expansion of the railroad system, along with the predominance of a natural resource in the hinterland such as coal or timber, led to the increased specialization of the waterfronts. Inadequacy of the original shoreline road and severe traffic congestion led to the second transportation change — construction of an elevated highway or expressway on landfill. This process resulted in limiting access to the city and forced offices and stores along the waterfront to relocate. These buildings were then converted to warehouses. In the final stage, two courses of action were open. Those ports that adapted to changing transportation and shipping technology continued to develop as ports, while those that could not adapt saw their role decline as port functions relocated, leaving behind abandoned warehouses, industries and rail lines. In the case where the port failed to adapt, the industrial area between the old working docks and the downtown core deteriorated. The industries associated with the port that had once capitalized on proximity to raw materials, a labour pool, and easy access to markets, migrated to the suburbs. Changes in transportation technologies, the relocation of port functions and rail lines, cheaper land in the suburbs, and a vastly improved road network, left little advantage to an inner-city location. The consequence was the creation of what Goodwin calls a "zone of discard." He describes this as a crescent-shaped area around the periphery of the CBD where it touches the waterfront and the railroad yards (Goodwin, 291). Hoyle describes this as the "interface zone of decline and decay" (Hoyle, 13). This is an area where urban land uses are separated from port functions — an area of conflict sometimes marked by cooperation and competition. He believes the zone develops over time as port functions gradually  13 leave in favour of deeper water and larger coastal sites. Port-based industries no longer dependent upon the break-bulk function or labour concentration also migrate to other urban and suburban zones. This desertion of the waterfront leaves behind a zone of decline and decay. This retreat from the waterfront has yielded the "abandoned doorstep," an area that "emerges as a spatial and functional vacuum bereft of its traditional raison d'etre" (Hoyle, 14). During this final stage of decline, the port area loses its original usefulness. Private developers and city officials discover that a large source of prime development land, strategically located next to the CBD, is becoming available for redevelopment. This situation provides the city with a unique opportunity to open the waterfront once more for public use; to provide a mixture of uses that blend residential, commercial, retail and recreational uses; to integrate the waterfront with the character of adjacent neighbourhoods; and to use the redevelopment as a catalyst for the economic revitalization of the waterfront and city by creating a focus for investment, new business and employment. However, Samperi believes that, by themselves, large available land areas are not enough to initially spur development. He submits that an important factor for spurring on development was the tremendous surge in the service sector in the economy. The "new plant" for the service sector became the high rise office building with plenty of amenities for employees and customers. This model, which Samperi describes this as the "New Plant" model, consists of a mix of uses that include commercial, retail, residential and recreational components. This mix creates a total environment where people can live, work, and play — a demand that the waterfront is well suited for (Samperi, 48). Turnbridge believes that it is the service-based replacement economy that has generated demand for inner-city housing, commercial space, and public amenities. He also believes that it is this economy that has stimulated cleanup and redevelopment of the waterfront (Tunbridge, 68-69).  14 Hall's model supports the new plant theory. He writes: "the usual model is a private-public involvement in a stereotypical development that includes marinas, other water-based leisure, museums, heritage buildings, restaurants, desirable housing, perhaps a hotel and a conference centre in a large scheme" (Hall, 9). He points out that the model is not invariable and that revitalization with a strong social content is rare; over time there is a tendency to shift toward more commercial content as success of the project seems assured and local community groups proved to have had little impact. Without exception, the ports analyzed in this study follow the theoretical patterns of port development and the morphology of the urban waterfronts analyzed in this literature review. The forces that led to the abandonment of the waterfront as a port and generated the impetus for change along the urban waterfront are common to every port considered in this study. 2.2  D E A T H OF T H E TRADITIONAL WATERFRONT Significant advancements in transportation and port technologies in the 1970s and 1980s  forever altered the nature of port operations and the shipping industry. The arrival of containerized cargo and intermodal transportation revolutionized cargo handling and made traditional port facilities obsolete both in land use and physical layout. Dramatic changes in truck and rail transportation systems, a tenfold increase in ship size, improved shipping vessel technology, and mechanization of dockside cargo handling rendered many older ports unusable. Characterizing the 1970s and 1980s has been the spectacular increase in the size and draught of ships, rendering many older ports unusable . . . . Furthermore, the methods of handling cargo have been drastically modified and new transportation concepts introduced. In particular . . . containerization and intermodality have greatly affected not only port operation and port structure, but also the traditional functions of ports (Hayuth, 52-54). The use of major load centre ports coupled to inter-modalism resulted in shipping lines abandoning traditional port terminals next to the central business districts of cities and dropping many ports-of-call entirely (Goodwin, 290). To successfully adjust to the changes, ports are spending  15 hundreds of millions of dollars on modernization. However, ports require not only modern equipment but also vast areas of additional land and deeper water. Modern container terminals 1  require extensive storage and stockpile space, and easy access to an efficient, fast and uncongested ground transportation network. "The once sufficient one or two hectare terminals had to be replaced with terminals of 10 to 15 hectares or more" (Hayuth, 55). These changes have significantly altered 2  the physical and organizational aspects of ports (Hall, 3). By the 1980s containerization had significantly reduced cargo-handling time. Achieving these gains in productivity, however, increased capital investment (Chilcote, 130). For example, 3  containerization requires huge container cranes capable of lifting 10 times the weight of traditional cranes. Also, by building increasingly larger vessels, unit container costs were lower, encouraging the continuing increase in vessel size for new container ships. In addition, a larger container ship does not substantially lengthen the time it takes to load/unload since additional container cranes can be used as the vessel size increases. Chilcote believes that vessel economies have still not levelled out and larger vessels still provide lower per unit costs. Thus, the economic incentive exists for even larger vessels and the 1990s will mark a full transition from general cargo to container on the major trade routes (Chilcote, 131). Containerization makes it possible for the rapid movement of large volumes of general cargo without any breaking of bulk at the port itself. The state of the art in the design of container handling facilities calls for putting the intermodal railyard onto the marine container terminal. The introduction of new rail technology such as the double-stack intermodal railcar has further advanced rail productivity for container traffic. "Rail traffic has adapted to ocean shipping and, as a result has made rail intermodalism the driving force in ocean shipping with entire trains transported directly and quickly to destination centres" (Chilcote, 139). This means selection of a port for a container load centre is not entirely dependent on geographical location or population base (Chilcote, 135).  16  In most urbanized areas, expansion of the port facilities to adapt to the new technology became impossible. Cities were forced to construct modern container terminals well outside the central waterfront, leading to the abandonment of docks and piers built for break-bulk freighters and passenger liners. Back-up land required for staging containers awaiting transshipment is simply unavailable next to the old working waterfront. "The old warehouse and transit sheds on downtown wharfs have now been rendered obsolete by the tamper proof, sealed containers which have replaced the labour intensive wooden pallets, rope slings and hand carts of earlier times" (Goodwin, 291). Vancouver's move to expanded container facilities at Roberts Bank, new container facilities at Yokohama, and relocation of Brisbane's South Bank docks to new facilities at the mouth of the Brisbane River, all resulted from the need for additional space for containerization operations and to berth larger ships. The Port of Sydney is being modernized and expanded to provide modern cargo handling facilities and to provide additional area for transportation connections. The modernization will allow the port to remain a world port capable of handling increased port traffic and changing technology. In San Francisco, 85 to 90 percent of the Bay Area container cargo is now handled at the Port of Oakland's massive container terminal. The Port of Oakland, realizing the potential of containerized technology early in the 1960s, constructed several major terminals specifically designed for container ships. San Francisco, however, continued building general cargo terminals which were unsuitable for efficient container operations. By the early 1970s, Oakland was handling ten times more container traffic than San Francisco (Chilcote, 141). San Francisco is currently modernizing, expanding its terminal operations, and relocating its existing maritime uses from the Mission Bay area. These changes will provide additional land along the bay shoreline in the Mission Bay area and allow the port to handle about one and a half times more cargo than is currently going into all Bay area ports.  17 Simultaneously, technology drastically changed the way ports functioned. Aging waterfront industry, manufacturing, and warehousing operations relocated away from the city centre. Several factors contributed to this industrial shift: the need for additional land for expansion, aging facilities, lack of easy access to highway systems, high land costs, and containerization. The railroads, too, suffered because of the decline in waterfront industries, changing shipping technology, and containerization. Railroad yards on the waterfront deteriorated due to age, neglect and disinvestment and they were relocated to the new container ports. Finally, port functions that could not successfully compete for waterfront land against urban land uses such as commercial and residential relocated elsewhere (Hayuth, 53). The relationship between deindustrialization of the inner-cities and restructuring of ports and urban waterfronts is complex, but the two phenomena share similar underlying causes. Because of these changes, many traditional ports could not make the transition to modern container ports. The waterfront, besides being abandoned, was now walled off from the core of the city by vacant land, elevated highways, and disused railroad rights-of-ways. "The waterfront virtually became a ghost area — a deserted, inaccessible, depressing reminder of better days" (Wrenn, 12).  2.3  U R B A N RESTRUCTURING This section has two functions: 1) to establish the economic and political significance of the  Pacific Rim and those common factors which link the case studies, and 2) to examine the effects of urban restructuring on the central waterfronts. In particular, the effects of urban restructuring on the relocating of port operations and associated transportation, manufacturing and industrial activities will be examined. The process of urban restructuring, although not directly responsible for waterfront decline, has contributed to the economic decline of the inner-city. Urbanization, the increasing proportion of people living and working in cities, has been a central feature in the formation of the Pacific Rim as a  18 new world region (Smith, 11). Major cities in the Pacific Rim serve as key points for corporate decision-making in an increasingly integrated network of trade and finance. These cities link the economies of the region to each other and with the rest of the world. Urbanization of Pacific Rim cities has reached historic proportions. For the Pacific Rim as a whole the urban population is expected to increase to one billion by the year 2000 or a 45% increase over 1986 levels (Smith, 12). The 28 nations of the Pacific Rim include Japan, Canada, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, Korea, Mexico, and the Philippines. Among these nations are five of the six fastest growing economies in the world. Despite their apparent diversity, these nations share Pacific ports, rapid growth, and limitless trade potential. As an aggregate market, the Pacific Rim has a potential market of two billion people. Although rapid urbanization is a recent phenomenon, the patterns of urban growth around the Pacific Rim have been developing over a long period of time. The now great cities of Yokohama, San Francisco, Sydney, Brisbane and Vancouver were created between the 18th and 19th centuries in locations where only small settlements existed. Today, these cites have become the state capitals or the cores of national and local economic development and industrial growth. The dynamics of structural change and economic growth that give prominence to the large cities of the Pacific Rim, suggest that they will increasingly be required to decentralize the central functions of the larger cities. The decentralization will create a new pattern of urbanization. In large part, market driven decentralization has been encouraged and supported by government policies throughout the Pacific Rim, for creating a more liveable region. In Japan, the government has conceived the core city concept which sees the decentralization of the central functions of key cities such as Tokyo to a series of core cities such as Yokohama. In Australia, the state government of New South Wales is carrying out a policy of office relocation and decentralization of government services. This policy has greatly affected the pattern of urban development in both Sydney and Newcastle.  19 This phenomenon of decentralization of people and jobs to the periphery of the city during the early 20th century had little impact on the character of the city. By the early 1980s there was a significant shift of industry and warehousing to the outer city. The development of the sprawling suburbs and the availability of large, easily accessible sites of cheaper land were the reasons for this shift. Finally, offices began to decentralize towards accessible sites in the outer city and near preferred residential locations. In the surrounding inner-city, population declined as people migrated to the lower density, more affordable, suburbs. Left behind within the inner-city is a concentration of the poor, unskilled and unemployed, along with derelict and abandoned industrial areas and vast amounts of unproductive land. At the same time, these vacant waterfront lands offer opportunities to solve some of the inner-city's social and economic problems. 2.4  RISE AND DECLINE OF PACIFIC RIM WATERFRONTS  2.4.0  INTRODUCTION This section analyzes the historical background of each selected city to understand its  contextual and historical relationship with the current waterfront development. These cities were chosen for their location, size, population, and the relative size and scope of waterfront redevelopment. This analysis has two broad objectives: 1) based on the literature review, to examine and compare the historical patterns of waterfront development and, 2) to examine how changing technology, decentralization and urban restructuring contributed to the decline of the port and waterfront activities of each city. 2.4.1  SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA The first settlement in Sydney began around 1788. Occupying the western shore of Sydney  Cove and government reserves located on the eastern shore, it served three functions: penal colony, military facility, and civil establishment (Powell, 26). The first period of port development involved  20 transferring goods to smaller boats while barrels were simply thrown overboard and pushed ashore. Fifty years passed before there were quays large enough for vessels to lie alongside in deep water (Bird, 36). In 1811, Sydney built its first wharf in Darling Harbour as the back door to the city. The wharf was reserved for small craft supplying the new marketplace which built up around it. In 1835, the Governor's House was relocated from the eastern shore of Sydney Cove which allowed comprehensive development of port facilities. Sydney became the "beachhead for the British imperial expansion on the Australian continent. . . . It was there that control of the expropriated natural resources was exercised. . . . By means of the control of internal and external trade and convict labour, the British aristocracy channelled much of the economic surplus through Sydney" (Wells, 65). The second phase of port development occurred throughout the 1830s and 1840s as the port expanded to export wool and agricultural products to feed the British demand. By 1844, 22 warehouses existed to store goods. The port developed as a thriving ship building and repair centre as the area was gradually infilled to provide room for industrial expansion. In 1874, redevelopment of the port called for a continuous line of quays along the east side of the cove. The terminals for the cruise liners and the West Sydney Cove Passenger terminal were located in this area until 1924. A third development phase took place from 1880 to 1900 as iron foundries, timber yards and sawmills were established which led to expansion of shipping activities. Industrial expansion took place in the 1920s, largely fuelled by company reinvestment and the growth of public companies. Mining, iron and steel industries expanded. Employment was concentrated in these urban industrial sites. Until the 1930s, the port and rail facilities continued to expand and the area formed a major focus for industry. In its heyday at the turn of the century, the City West area, consisting of four precincts: Ultimo-Pyrmont, The Bays (Glebe Island, White Bay and Rozelle Bay), Central Rail Station, and the Eveleigh Workshops and Goods Yards was a thriving part of the inner-city. Its population worked at  21 the nearby port, on the railways and in the industry. This continued until after World War II when the areas became specialized. Pyrmont is a sandstone peninsula jutting into Sydney harbour. The quarried sandstone cliffs are a legacy of the area that remain a distinctive element of Pyrmont. It is separated from the Sydney Central Business District (CBD) on its eastern side by Darling Harbour. In 1902 Pyrmont was connected to the city by the Pyrmont Bridge across Darling Harbour. The early predominance of shipping activities in Darling Harbour resulted in the erection of an arc of finger wharfs, warehouses and related industrial activity around Pyrmont Bay to Pyrmont Point. Due to the extreme change in elevation, the wharfs developed as a two level system. As a result, no large redevelopment for container wharfs occurred to destroy this unique feature. While the CBD developed into a commercial hub, Pyrmont and its adjacent suburb, Ultimo, played a pivotal role in Sydney's early history as a shipping port, rail interchange and industrial centre. Consequently, Ultimo-Pyrmont soon boasted over 30,000 residents. However, by the second half of this century, industrial decline, decentralization and changes in transportation technology alienated Pyrmont and much of the area fell into disuse. By the 1980s, the area had experienced a serious decline in industrial and maritime activity as industries moved out or were superseded. Today, less than a thousand people live in the precinct (CWDC, Annual Report 1992-93 and NSW Dept. of Housing, Bowman Street, App. C). Post-war metropolitan growth and changing transport technologies led to the restructuring of the CBD and contributed to the obsolescence of port activities in the central waterfront. Sydney Cove, once the heart of maritime trade and commerce, is now the backdrop of office towers. The construction of the Opera House caused the abandonment of the deep water berths on the eastern side. By the early 1970s the harbour areas were at the heart of a massive decline in the city core. Today, the 300 hectare City West area is neglected, under-utilized, and run-down. The railway is rarely used  22 and the port and other industries have slowly wound down. The adjoining wharfs, used as Sydney's second passenger terminal, are scheduled to move. 2.4.2  NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH W A L E S , AUSTRALIA Newcastle was developed in 1804 as a penal colony. This activity was abandoned in 1824 in  favour of its function as a port for shipment of agricultural goods and coal from the Hunter Valley. The Newcastle foreshore changed shape as harbour berths were constructed and transport access was developed. Because the Hunter River estuary was severely shoaled and exposed to gales, it was a poor foundation for port development. Port improvements began in 1818 when convict labour began to build a breakwater. However, before work was completed, the penal colony was closed and the breakwater was not completed until 1846. In 1831, a modern colliery equipped with an elementary railroad to the port was opened. The waterfront area was heavily used for loading and exporting coal. Extensive underground coal mining took place in what is now central Newcastle and inner suburban areas. Before the coming of the railways in the 1850s, the development of Newcastle was hampered by the inefficiency of land transport. Consequently, coal mining was limited to those areas with deep water access. Agricultural products were shipped from towns at the headwaters of inland rivers. With the introduction of steam railways, Newcastle assumed its dominant role as a regional and higher order centre. The prime concern of the Newcastle Chamber of Commerce in 1856 was the need for harbour improvements. Between 1862 and 1878 extensive improvements to the port were completed. The town's first major incentive for growth was its connection by rail to the coal fields in 1858. This connection allowed it to function as a coaling station for most coastal and overseas cargo ships. Newcastle built its first wharf soon after, in 1859. The arrival of the railway required the reclamation of significant amounts of waterfront land.To provide the space for Newcastle's railway station and general cargo handling the area surrounding the south bank of Throsby Creek was reclaimed using  23 industrial by-products. During the 1855-1870 period, the area known as the Honeysuckle Goods Yard was developed as a major facility for the transport of passengers and freight. As part of the development, various industrial facilities were constructed including an extensive gas works, work shop areas and a foundry. Construction of the rail line also resulted in the construction of King's Wharf in 1864. The first large scale reclamation of the delta for port and industrial purposes began that same year. The foreshore strip built up with warehouses, markets, boat sheds, wool stores and timber yards. As the original wharfs could not handle the increased volume of shipping, they were replaced with newer wharfs further upstream (Bird, 153). The development of a new system of coal handling required extensive port upgrading, including dyke improvements, new wharfs, dredging of the basin, and improvements to the rail network. Today, Newcastle is Australia's leading port in terms of tonnage for exports of bulk cargo (Bird, 148). Advances in port technology led to development of new port facilities, including a modern bulk cargo berth and the world's largest coal loading facility. The rationalization of rail services to Honeysuckle, the changing needs of the inner-city, the relocation of the port functions, and modern berthing facilities have provided the city with a unique opportunity for redevelopment of the waterfront and the rail yards. The "Honeysuckle" project calls for the redevelopment of 45 hectares (111 acres) of obsolete port facilities, rail yards, unused warehouse structures, and adjoining surplus government land strategically located in the Newcastle CBD.  2.4.3  BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA The first use of the south bank of the Brisbane River began soon after the establishment of the  Moreton Bay penal colony in 1824. As the main point of arrival from the interior, the south bank area was a logical location for ships to berth and for the establishment of facilities catering to the travelling public. In 1842, Commissioner for Crown Lands, Stephen Simpson observed: "As no good  24 road can be formed on the North Bank of the river, South Brisbane is likely to become the great place of business" (SBC, Area Approved Development Plan, Part B, 5). The first town plan of Brisbane in 1842 delineated several streets on the south side. By 1850, 80 percent of all goods imported and exported through the port landed and loaded at the five wharfs at South Brisbane. Despite this dominance in shipping activity, the Customs House was constructed on the north side of the river. Consequently, the south bank lost its importance as the focal point for shipping, and therefore lost status as a commercial centre. From 1860 to 1880, the area developed into a residential sector. Bridging the river in 1866 greatly helped the development. The period between 1880 and 1900 was a boom period for South Brisbane with the construction of a dry dock, a railway line and a coal wharf. By the 1890s, South Brisbane was the terminus of the Western and Intercontinental Railway lines and port to a thriving shipping industry. More than 900 meters of wharfage allowed the largest ships of the time to load. These prime shipping and railway facilities encouraged the growth of industries such as iron and steel, timber and printing. In this period, Stanley Street, along the waterfront, developed into one of Brisbane's major thoroughfares and retail centres. As early as 1842 the area was identified as Stanley Quay. It formed the skeleton upon which the rest of the municipalities on the southern bank developed and was the premier street of the south side. "If all evidence of Stanley Street were to be rubbed out, the continuity of 140 years of development would be lost" (SBC, Area Approved Development Plan, Part B, 6). By the late 1880s, the intersection of Stanley and Vulture Streets had evolved into the major civic focus point of South Brisbane. The municipality of South Brisbane was declared in 1888 and chosen as the site for the town hall. In 1891, with the construction of the South Brisbane rail terminus on the Brisbane waterfront, the area began to gradually decline. Destruction of the Indooroopilly Railway Bridge by the flood of 1893 resulted in rail traffic being directed to South Brisbane until  25 construction of a new bridge in 1896. The combined effect of the flood and the construction of the rail terminal resulted in many Stanley Street retailers moving out of the area. South Brisbane's continued dependence on shipping for its prosperity led to its end in the years following World War II as ships became larger. In order to accommodate increasing ship size, the Port of Brisbane moved progressively downstream to the mouth of the Brisbane River. By the 1970s there was little on the ground to suggest the area's former prosperity. The old wharfs were demolished and the warehouses abandoned or adapted for new uses (SBC, Area Approved Development Plan, Part B, 5-6). Over the last ten years there has been a campaign of urban renewal along the riverbank in South Brisbane. The decision to locate Expo 88 in South Brisbane provided an opportunity for urban renewal on a much larger scale. The area of the Expo site was approximately 40 hectares and its location across the Brisbane River from the CBD made it a valuable area. Despite its riverside position, the appearance of the area before Expo was generally unattractive. It was an area of urban blight filled with old and deteriorating buildings. However, buildings of historic significance were maintained and renovated. When the World Expo 88 Authority began acquiring the land in 1985, businesses were forced to relocate. This met with little resistance from business interests and residents in the surrounding area since only one-quarter of the Expo site was privately owned, with the Queensland Government and the Brisbane City Council owning the remainder (Davies, 132-133). The redevelopment of the post-Expo site will transform 40 hectares (98 acres)of South Brisbane from a blighted area of warehouses and light industry to an attractive area catering to a wide range of people and uses.  2.4.4  SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, U.S.A. The Spaniards discovered San Francisco Bay in 1769. The first major harbour facility was  developed in the sheltered Yerba Buena Cove near the northeast corner of the San Francisco  26 Peninsula. San Francisco's rapid development began in 1848 with the discovery of gold and California becoming a state. At that time a total of 86 vessels entered the Golden Gate. Thirty years later, in 1878, the number was 1700. The greatest change to the early city took place near the original village of Yerba Buena. As dependence on the shipping industry and activity in the port increased, additional facilities were provided. The first steps were the filling in of the shallow cove to reach deep water and the construction of the first piers just before the start of the Gold Rush in 1848. By the end of 1849, the original settlement in Yerba Buena Cove had become the city of San Francisco with a population of 35,000. It became a thriving port for the whaling fleet and merchant trading ships. After the start of the Gold Rush, the port facilities were overwhelmed and a series of new piers had to be built. The longest, known as Long Wharf, was built in 1849. This pier extended some 2000 feet into the bay to a point where the water was deep enough for the Pacific Mail steamers. This was such a profitable venture that piers were soon built from the end of every street from Market Street to the base of Telegraph Hill. By 1856, there were nearly two miles of piers. Besides the shipping piers, several others were built to accommodate houses, shops, commission houses, restaurants, and other businesses. Infilling of the cove continued, and by the end of 1851 the piers were replaced by streets over more than half their lengths — an area of some 40 square blocks.  4  The 1850s saw expansion of port activity. The first subdivision laid out on the south bank of Mission Bay was in 1849 (Lewis, 1980). A water taxi service took people across the bay and up Mission Creek to Mission Dolores. At that time various industries occupied the shoreline including several brick manufacturers. In the 1860s, Southern Pacific Railroad and Western Pacific Railroad obtained part of the tidelands belonging to Mission Bay. The first significant incursion into the bay was the construction of Long Bridge in 1865. It was built on a low lying wooden structure on rock fill, almost closing Mission Bay. The bridge provided a rail, street car and pedestrian traffic way along the shoreline. Extending from the bridge  27 was a deeper water cattle wharf. The bridge was intended as a transportation link between downtown and the factories planned to the south. However, the factories were never built and Long Bridge became a major recreation site. By 1868, the Southern Pacific and Central Railroads owned most of the private water lots in the Bay and through acts of the state legislature were granted additional bay acreage. The first railroad terminals and warehouses were built in the Bay area in 1876. At that time, Mission Bay also became the city's dump and major sewage outlet. Over half the sewage of the city flowed into it by the late 1800s. Mission Creek was described at the time as "sufficient to sicken a visitor . . . with smells that the strongest nostrils may not withstand and that the disinfectants of a metropolis could not remove" (San Francisco Dept. of City Planning, Mission Bay—Proposal for Citizen Review, 2-4). The city began to fill the bay, using the garbage and tons of rock from the surrounding hills that were being levelled to provide workers' housing. Filling was completed using rubble hauled from the devastated downtown following the 1906 earthquake. With the filling of the bay, piers were added along the waterfront, and by 1920 the area became a major marshalling yard for rail and boat cargo. Active lumber and mill-yards supplied a booming city economy, and shipyards along the channel edge built wooden freighters, steam schooners and ferries. Transportation and related services primarily occupy the site today. Interstate 280 and the Caltrain rail lines and station occupy 36 acres. Sixty percent of the site is vacant, derelict, or underutilized, caused by the relocation of the rail facilities and warehouses. The greatest catalyst to the decline of this area was the development of the largest container port on the west coast at the Port of Oakland. This giant container facility now handles 85 percent of all general and container cargo moving through the Golden Gate. The Port of San Francisco, on the other hand, has steadily declined in importance (Scott, 322).  28 2.4.5  YOKOHAMA, JAPAN The Port of Yokohama is 134 years old, having officially opened on July 1, 1859. The first  pier and breakwaters were completed in 1896. The first dry-docks were built between 1897-1899. To cope with increased trade, the port greatly expanded between 1899-1917. Lacking sufficient space, part of the bay was filled and lined with mooring berths, sheds, redbrick warehouses, cranes and was connected to the Port of Yokohama by railroad. Work was completed on the landfill in 1911 and the inland warehouses and rail connections were completed in 1917. At this time Yokohama became the foremost port in Japan and rivalled Hong Kong and Shanghai for supremacy in the Far East. By 1900, Yokohama had become the port of origin for overseas routes to Europe, North America and Australia. It was the main port of call for American and Canadian steamship lines and the home base for Japan's two major lines. However, faced with stiff competition from other ports such as Kobe, the great earthquake of 1923, and differences in the industrial structure in the hinterlands of the two ports, Yokohama's importance as a trading port declined. The original ship repair facilities flourished until the Kanato earthquake of September 1923 and the stock market crash of 1929. During the post war years Yokohama grew in importance as a trading port. By 1967, the Port of Yokohama was the largest international trading port in Japan, a claim it maintains to this day. However, the old docks and port facilities proved inadequate to cope with the increase in trade, the super tankers and containerization. The dockyards, warehouses, industrial equipment and railyards moved elsewhere in 1989 and new shipyards were built.  2.4.6  VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA Coal Harbour and the Central Waterfront In 1859, because of the discovery of coal in the area of the present Coal Harbour, a temporary harbour was built in Burrard Inlet. However, despite several unsuccessful attempts to mine coal, it was logging that spurred the growth of the settlement and its port function (Burkinshaw, 7). In  29 1863, the first export cargo of lumber left Burrard Inlet for Australia. By the late 1860s, there was a thriving export trade with Australia, San Francisco and South America. In 1871, British Columbia joined in confederation with Canada on the promise of a rail connection with the rest of the country being completed by 1871. The first transcontinental train reached the terminus at Coal Harbour on May 23, 1887. The site was selected for its deep water harbour and because space for rail switch-yards was available. The location saved the ships a difficult passage through Second Narrows. The Canadian Pacific Railway 5  (CPR) expanded its operations with the construction of a depot, a 1000-foot wharf and three freight sheds. The arrival of the first rail line along the south shore of the inlet further enhanced this section of the waterfront for port development. Consequently, most port facilities were originally constructed along the inner harbour and the area became known as the city's central waterfront. In 1886, the rail line was extended across the peninsula from Burrard Inlet to False Creek and along the creek's north shore. The new trans-Pacific trade boomed. London to Yokohama via Vancouver was two weeks quicker than via Suez. The CPR secured a British contract to carry mail to Japan and China and built its own ships that began service in 1891. The port and city became known as the "Gateway to the Orient" (Burke, 152). Coastal steamship services were established to Australia, Hawaii and Fiji. In 1897, with the discovery of gold in the Klondike, port activity boomed. There was a large expansion of manufacturing with many of the new plants built around False Creek and Burrard Inlet. This increased shipping activity and expanded port facilities. The CPR expanded the number of ships on the runs to Yokohama and Hong Kong. Steamer service increased, carrying passengers and mail up and down the coast and new routes were opened (Hull, 54).  6  By 1914 the port facilities were greatly expanded with the construction of two new piers by the CPR and federal government and the dredging of False Creek (Burkinshaw, 21). World War II  30 expanded Vancouver's shipbuilding industry. At its peak the shipyards employed over 30,000 workers. Thousands more worked at the Boeing Aircraft plants at Coal Harbour and False Creek. A period of rapid economic growth began in the early 1950s. Shipping traffic increased and cargo movement through the port finally exceeded that of the 1920s. Trade with the Pacific Rim countries became increasingly important. In 1966, the National Harbours Board (NHB) extended the official boundaries of the Port of Vancouver from 49 square miles within the Burrard Inlet to nearly 200 miles, reaching to the United States border. First Narrows was deepened to 50 feet, but for many of the new bulk carriers this was still too shallow. A new bulk cargo facility at Roberts Bank opened in 1970 to handle the increasing bulk cargo traffic. The NHB prohibited further construction of bulk terminals anywhere in Burrard Inlet. Policy now requires that all new bulk berths locate at the deep water facility at Roberts Bank. False Creek In 1889, the CPR agreed to locate the Pacific terminal yards on the north shore of False Creek. The first industries to locate along the shores were primarily wood related — sawmills, shingle mills, and various wood treatment plants. The creek was used to float the logs in and store them while the railway provided access to the markets. During the early development of False Creek no regulations existed to control the development of industries or the disposal of toxic waste. As a result industrial waste was disposed of directly on-site and used mainly as fill. By 1915 Granville Island had been formed from material dredged from the creek to increase the width and depth of the channel. Over the next three decades more industries located on Granville Island and throughout False Creek. Many of these contributed to the pollution of the Creek and were a hazard to health. These industries included a slaughter house, creosote mill, a coal gasification plant, gas works, and numerous metal based industries.  31 In 1915, the Canadian National Railway (CNR) completed its transcontinental rail line to Vancouver. The site chosen for its terminus was the north end of False Creek. To create land for the switch yards and depots, over one-third of False Creek was filled in (Hull, 68). By 1927 the area had become an eyesore and a menace to health. As a result, the city proposed that the CNR yards move from False Creek and the area be upgraded. Meanwhile, the area had also become home to the poor and unemployed, with a city of shacks and dugouts developing. By 1942 the creek had become so polluted that it was said to be unfit for humans. A decade later, the problem with squatters had become severe with over 112 dwellings and 139 people living in the area. The squatters' shanty town continued until 1955 when it was burned and bulldozed to make way for the Fisherman's Wharf project. Throughout the 1960s, debate raged over whether to develop False Creek as industrial land or residential and recreational. The public consensus was against industrial development. A report revealed that "the city could no longer afford to allow False Creek to remain an industrial centre and that more revenue would come to the city by moving residential and recreational facilities into the area" (Fairview Slopes). In spite of public opposition, in 1967 the City adopted a long-term policy to retain False Creek as an industrial area. In 1968, however, the City reversed its decision and lifted the industrial zoning designation of False Creek. The lifting of the industrial zone designation was viewed as "the single most significant decision affecting the inlet since 1885 when the CPR announced its intention to extend its line to Coal Harbour and English Bay" (Burkinshaw, 59). The redesignation of the site from industrial use to a Comprehensive Development District allowed redevelopment to proceed on both the north and south shores of False Creek. The decision was based on three factors: 1) lack of space forced industries wishing to expand to relocate to the suburbs, 2) construction of new port facilities at Roberts Bank made the role of False Creek as a secondary harbour to the central waterfront no longer viable, and 3) the consolidation of land ownership between  32 the CPR, the City and the Province (Rodger, 1976). By 1974 most of the industries, rail, and marine activities had deserted False Creek. 2.5  EVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS In applying the models of Wrenn and Bird to the case studies, it is evident that, without  exception, each of the case studies followed the stages of development described in the models. Bird's "Primitive Port Era" and Wrenn's "Safe Harbour Stage" parallel the first quarter of a century in the development of all the ports from 1800-1825. During this time Sydney, Brisbane and Newcastle were settled as penal colonies; San Francisco, Vancouver and Yokohama were settled and developed, as Wrenn described, for safe harbours for early trade and commerce. The expansion period in both models represents the next 125 years of development in the ports to post World War II. This period is marked by the heyday in development of not only the port and maritime trade, but in the physical development of the city and the expansion of trade to the hinterlands. The ports firmly established themselves as the dominant centres of trade and commerce in the Pacific Rim. They were interconnected through trade and commerce and became important trading partners intrinsically tied to each other. Bird's model divides this period of rapid expansion into three distinct eras measured by changes in port infrastructure and dock development. Wrenn takes a more holistic approach and considers the entire period as one stage of rapid expansion. He considers both port infrastructure development and the expansion of the city, including its economy and transportation network. The decline of the traditional port functions marks the third period. Wrenn's model clearly proves this decline is due to technological improvements in ship design and construction, cargo shipping and handling, port infrastructure and land requirements,and transportation systems. Bird shows the change is due to the need for specialized quayage for bulk cargo and containerization. By the late 1970s, what was left behind in all cases was what Goodyear describes as a "zone of discard" or as Hoyle describes it, "a zone of decline and decay — the abandoned doorstep." Only  33 in Vancouver are the primary container facilities still located in the inner harbour on Burrard Inlet. The Vancouver inner harbour also has the majority of moorage and handles the greatest amount of cargo. However, the Port of Vancouver is quickly running out of room and expansion of existing facilities has been prohibited. The Port of Yokohama continued to adapt and thrive as a port until the late 1980s when its facilities relocated away from the central waterfront to make way for new development. Brisbane's port moved further up-river to new modern facilities with room for expansion and the capability of using modern technology. Sydney's deep water berths relocated to make room for the Sydney Opera House. The Port of Oakland built the largest container port on the west coast and the Port of San Francisco simply could not compete and gradually diminished in importance. By the 1980s, containerization had forever altered traditional port activity and all but eliminated break-bulk cargo handling. Even with massive modernization of their port facilities, the majority of existing ports have been forced to relocate. By the 1980s the original waterfronts had "virtually become a ghost area — a deserted, inaccessible, depressing reminder of better days" (Wrenn, 12). A final factor contributing to the decline of the central waterfronts is urban restructuring. This is the process of decentralization that accounted for the rapid loss of industry, warehousing and transport activities from the city centre. In all cases, as these functions moved to the periphery of the city, the existing inner-city industrial and warehouse districts were abandoned and quickly decayed. However, cities quickly realized that these areas now offered unique opportunities to open up their waterfronts and to resolve some of their critical inner-city social and economic issues. They realized that there existed a relatively inexpensive, and usually an extremely lucrative, source of prime development land strategically located next to the CBD.  3  m  8.  <J2.  5' £, 3  o  ^  •3  I "3  NO - J  NO NO  o  3 NO - J  o  NO  9 NO NO  o  NO - J  o  o  g  ?  o  9  9  ON  3£  9  NO  00 NO  NO - J  o  NO  NO  NO  ©  o  O  3.  00  in  9 NO  o  O  o  00 NO  00 - J  00 NO  9 NO NO  o  NO - J  NO NO  o  NO - J  o  00  NO  ON  9 NO NO  o  NO - J  o  NO  o  of  O  to U\  1  oo ON  O  00  I  CHAPTER T H R E E A NEW E R A FOR U R B A N WATERFRONTS 3.0  INTRODUCTION The withdrawal of port functions provides an exceptional opportunity to restore historic links between the populace and the waterfront, to reclaim a heritage resource, and to exploit a prime reserve of inner-city redevelopment land (Turnbridge, 68). The intent of Part One of this study was to trace the rise and decline of several Pacific Rim  waterfronts and to examine the literature and theories on the causes of waterfront decline. Pinder refers to this period of waterfront decline as the "Retreat and Redundancy Phases" (Pinder, 248). In Chapter Two the analysis examined the processes and forces underlying the retreat from the traditional waterfront, the subsequent decline of the maritime quarter and the emergence of underutilized and abandoned space. These forces primarily were intense technological changes in shipping and cargo handling methods, and port deindustrialization generated by both technological considerations and as a response to global economic forces. According to Pinder, this next stage is the "Transition Phase" or the problem recognition stage. "As the experience of many city-ports testifies, action to revitalize abandoned waterfronts does not follow naturally from the emergence of redundant space. Normally a transition phase . . . has been necessary for port retreat to be perceived as a problem requiring urgent attention" (Pinder, 252). Pinder believes that physical and economic issues are the two central catalysts that force local authorities into recognizing the problem and taking action. The objective of Part Two is to move through this transition phase, examining the issues and obstacles that faced these cities in the revitalization of their waterfronts, and to compare how these Pacific Rim cities resolved them. A fundamental assumption is that investigations of redundant waterfronts should not be separated from the more general issue of inner-urban change that is occurring throughout the Pacific Rim. Policies affecting the revitalization of the waterfronts are also  35  36 being used to address the much broader issues associated with urbanization throughout the Pacific Rim. The evaluation of each of the seven case studies follows the same format: 1) urban and regional issues; 2) goals, objectives, and policies; 3) concepts; 4) planning process; and 5) the plan. Economic, housing, environmental and ecological, quality of life, and traffic and transportation systems issues are explored. A review of the project concepts includes a summary of the evolution of the project and urban design philosophy. The planning process includes an examination of community participation, approval process, and management structure and finance. The plan includes a summary of the final land use and development mix. The analysis also explores the effectiveness of city policy in dealing with each of the issues and how each city resolved the conflicts and overcame the obstacles facing it. A further component of this analysis is a comparison of the various management structures that were established to coordinate and implement the policies. This includes the interface between the public and private sector, the approval process, and community participation. Although each solution is likely to be distinct to the selected city, and based upon how that city perceived the problem and the community's social and economic needs, the intent is to try to determine and evaluate the effectiveness of the policies, process and structure.  3.1  SOUTH BANK - BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA  3.1.0  Urban and Regional Issues The city of Brisbane with a population of 750,000, is the capital of the State of Queensland  and is the nearest major Australian transport centre to the Asian Pacific Rim. In 1993 Brisbane won the title of Australia's most liveable city (Figure 3-1). It has consistently ranked as one of Australia's top tourist destinations. An hour's drive south is Queensland's Gold Coast and two hours north are the beaches of the Sunshine Coast. The Bureau of Tourism estimates that hotel room demand will outstrip available accommodation in the Brisbane area by the mid-1990s.  37a  pq  "S  s  i if  5 I  1 o  i  37b  38 Greater Brisbane's population was 1.3 million in 1991 and, with a population growing at twice the national average, by 2006 population is expected to be almost 1.7 million. Within 30 years Brisbane will be the centre of a regional metropolis with a population of between 2.7 and 3.5 million. If present growth rates continue, $A20 billion will need to be spent in the next decade by the government and private sector on 15,000-18,000 homes, 500-600 new shops, 25-35 new schools, and 350-450 new hospital beds. The Port of Brisbane Authority manages 30 wharfs. Fisherman Island, located on the mouth of the Brisbane River, is the modern heart of the Port of Brisbane. It can handle the largest container and ro-ro ships in the world plus bulk grain carriers and oil tankers. Its strategic development plan will see expansion and modernization of general cargo and container facilities by 2005.  7  Brisbane is part of the South-East Queensland Region (SEQ) which is made up of the SEQ Regional Organization of Councils comprising 20 local authorities. However, responsibility for growth management in the region lies with the state government in consultation with local authorities. The SEQ 2001 Planning Document, Creating Our Future, predicts up to 200,000 people will move to the Brisbane City Council area by 2001. Thus, a priority for development within Brisbane is to put in place policies that will manage growth, enhance liveability and ensure that services are provided for residents (Brisbane City Council, Liveable Brisbane, 11). Creating Our Future also recognizes the need for a coordinated public transport network in the SEQ region. City Council's involvement is to ensure that the links between traffic planning, land development and public transport are given high priority. Brisbane is committed to a program of urban renewal and inner suburbs action projects that will revitalize inner-city suburbs, increase residential population and jobs and create attractive living places. The City of Brisbane's City Signature Program is designed to ensure the CBD and surrounding areas remain a dynamic focus of Brisbane and the SEQ Region. Under this program, the City will continue to upgrade the CBD public spaces by improving street furniture and pedestrian  39 spaces and by installing landscaping (Brisbane City Council, Liveable Brisbane, 15-16). The Commonwealth is contributing $31 million under the Building Better Cities program to fund these initiatives. The South Bank Development (SBD) has been designed to meet all of these regional objectives. With the projected population increase, another policy is to promote housing choice and diversity with an emphasis on access and affordability. The South Brisbane area is currently subject to a residential gentrification process where the less affluent residents are being displaced in favour of more affluent owner/occupiers seeking to capitalize on the near city location. The encouragement of the high quality residential development in the corporation area will help take the pressure off the South Brisbane area residential market to provide this type of residential development. City urban renewal objectives promote the redevelopment of out-moded industrial areas for medium to high density residential development due to the site's proximity to employment, shopping facilities of the central city and their riverfront location. To meet this objective, the South Bank Development proposes to have a major residential component as part of the development. The amount of residential development bears heavily on the economic viability of the overall proposals (SBC, Development Plan, PartB, 112). The South Brisbane area has generally been characterized by housing development at the lower end of the market and by refurbishment of existing dwellings. As a result, there is a need to provide a wider variety of housing throughout the area to accommodate different residential groups. However, most of the South Brisbane area is unsuitable for high quality residential development whereas the corporation area is well located. The quality of the residential environment within the corporation area will enhance the desirability for the top end of the residential market. Neither of the existing low end housing markets would be adversely affected by the proposed residential development. It is also unlikely that any additional development of medium density, high quality  40 residential units would take place in the balance of the South Brisbane area prior to the full development of the corporation area. The quality of the residential development proposed will also enhance the vitality and viability of both the corporation area and the surrounding South Brisbane area. It is essential that the overall development has the benefit of the life provided by the residents. The issue of including affordable housing as part of South Bank has been a sensitive and often controversial one: The SBC area has inherently very high land values and if adequate riverside parkland is to be created there is limited scope for numerically significant provision of public housing. The public cost would be very great and the net result would be to create a small number of highly privileged public housing tenants, whose numbers would do little to balance the continuing haemorrhage of rental housing from the surrounding inner suburbs (SBC, Development Plan, Part B, 132). The chairman of the South Bank Corporation stated: "If you want housing for the disadvantaged people of Brisbane, I think you have to go to the lower-cost areas" (Franklin, 9). The position the state and local governments have taken is to: acquire existing property and build new dwellings for public rental in a Community Development Project area. . . . This is a more socially desirable, practical and economic approach . . . than building expensive public housing on the Corporation Area. Such an act would be symbolic rather than have practical significance (SBC, Development Plan, Part B, 133). A key element of Brisbane's urban renewal is the introduction of a light rail system that would extend to the South Bank Development area and stimulate revitalization of commercial and recreational areas along its route. In 1960, 40 percent of all personal traffic was by public transport. By 1993 this had dropped to 8 percent. "The overuse of the private car harms the urban and natural environments, it clogs our streets, requires more and bigger roads which break up communities and creates smog" (Brisbane City Council, Liveable Brisbane, 19). To correct this situation, City policy is to develop dedicated bike lanes with bicycle racks and showers in all new city developments. The South Bank Development area is served by two Brisbane suburban railway stations and allows direct access for passengers at either end of the development. In addition, terminals used for  41 the internal waterway system are within close proximity of both railway stations. The development area also has direct ferry service to the central city side of the Brisbane River. Within the South Bank Development the main internal people mover system is a waterway system which provides movement throughout the entire length of the corporation area and connects with the pedestrian and cycle paths and public transportation stations. The development area also has an extensive network of bicycle and pedestrian pathways which connect with the existing city bikeway. In 1993 Brisbane produced Liveable Brisbane, a plan to enhance Brisbane's liveability. The document presents policies and actions necessary to protect the quality of life, lifestyle, and environment within Brisbane (Brisbane City Council, Liveable Brisbane, 1). To achieve these goals, the City of Brisbane has put in place a comprehensive environmental management plan which the South Bank Development conforms to. The development has achieved the goal of protecting the quality of air in a number of ways: 1) eliminating auto traffic throughout the South Bank Parklands, 2) reducing traffic through the commercial precinct, 3) extending the LRT to serve the entire development, 4) encouraging cycling and walking by providing an extensive network of cycle and pedestrian paths, and 5) providing ferry service. To achieve the goal of maintaining Brisbane's image of a green city, the South Bank Parklands is landscaped with thousands of lush sub-tropical plants, and a rainforest has been recreated. To take advantage of the city's "Free Tree" program, and to conform to Brisbane's Boulevard program, the development includes an extensive tree planting program to line the streets. Finally, South Bank incorporates Liveable Brisbane's open space strategy by: 1) enhancing the City's quality of life, its character and image; 2) improving the city's recreational assets, including natural areas that provide environments for plants and animals; and, 3) integrating the built and natural environments.  42 3.1.1  Planning for South Bank 1983-1990 In mid-1983 the state government requested a conceptual plan for the development of the  Expo 88 lands on Brisbane's South Bank. The intention was that Expo would leave Brisbane with a legacy of community facilities (Figure 3-2). The Expo Act gave the Expo Authority the power to develop and improve lands; to dispose of land; to achieve a net financial gain, imposing no cost to the Government of Queensland; and to prepare in close liaison with Brisbane City Council zoning plans for the use of all lands within the site. As a result of the direction that no financial burden could be placed on the state government, tension over the development of the site existed between the state government and the Expo Authority throughout the development process. Everyone concerned was anxious to avoid the experience of other Expo host cities of blighting a large parcel of valuable innercity land through an inability to put together an appropriate post-Expo development proposal. In the Council's view it was the use of the site following the Exposition that was of paramount concern. As a result of this concern, the overall objective for the development as stated by the SBC in its approved development plan was: "to ensure the Corporation Area is an attractive place for people to live, work and enjoy themselves" (SBC, Development Plan, Part A, 1). Appendix 2, Tables 5 and 6 provide a summary of development objectives and guidelines for South Bank. In November 1986 the Expo Authority called for expressions of interest for development of 20 hectares (49 acres) of land adjacent to the Brisbane River. Submissions were required to conform to a set of technical guidelines produced by the Expo Authority in conjunction with the state government and Brisbane City Council. The Expo Authority hoped to choose a developer in 1987 or early 1988 to allow site redevelopment to begin as soon as Expo finished on October 30, 1988. Thirteen development consortia expressed interest by the closing date of March 16, 1987. Assessment of the schemes was undertaken by a committee composed of representatives of the Expo Authority, state government and Brisbane City Council.  43 Figure 3-2 South Bank 1984  Source: South Bank: An Historical Perspective  44  The Council was determined that unrestricted public access along the river and substantial parkland would be part of the future development of the site. On February 2, 1988 the River City 2000 Consortium was selected as the preferred developer, on the basis of a payment of $A200 million spread over a number of years. The proposed $A1 billion development included two hotels with provision for a casino, a world trade centre, an exhibition and convention centre, a space and science centre, retail and commercial space, and a large residential component. The proposal also involved the creation of an island in the Brisbane River by the construction of a canal through the Expo site, on which would stand the 50-storey world trade centre facility, international hotel, and exhibition centre. The premier stated that he was confident Queenslanders would be absolutely delighted with the River City 2000 concept which he believed represented a very high quality of integrated planning, innovation and aesthetics. However, the public reaction to the scheme was generally adverse, particularly in relation to the proposed casino. This was later underscored by the enormous popular success of Expo, which created a new awareness in the community of the value of this riverfront site, and resulted in public demands for the retention of the site as a "people's place." Public disquiet increased when it became known that the scheme would require the relocation of three historic buildings within the site which had been refurbished for Expo (Gibson, 29-31). Moreover, the plan provided no parkland, open spaces, or facilities that would suit the needs of the local community which was largely low income, ethnically mixed and communityminded. Public opinion was unanimous in endorsing support for greenbelt or parkland type use and opposing commercial and residential development (Craik, 1989,107). The situation was complicated by allegations of cronyism (Roberts, 7) and a claim by one of the unsuccessful consortia that the financial ground rules had been unfairly changed by including a casino in the River City 2000 proposal (Morely, 3; Walker, 1). Church groups (Watson, 7), citizens at public meetings, unions and Brisbane's two major daily newspapers, called upon the state  45 government to reverse its decision to award preferred developer status to the River City 2000 consortium. Several alternative approaches were suggested, including purchase of the site by the Council on behalf of the people of Brisbane, and funding the purchase of the site by the community through lotteries or public subscription. On June 7, 1988, as a result of strong public opposition, irritation with the excessive secrecy of the decision, disregard for public interests, lack of community and city involvement, and dissatisfaction with the tendering process, the premier announced that a fresh start would be made on the redevelopment of the Expo site (Figure 3-3). He further stated that new proposals would be called according to guidelines which would meet public demands. These guidelines would include: 1) an embargo on development of a casino, 2) a physical plan in harmony with community expectations, 3) the retention of historic buildings in their existing locations, 4) the retention of riverfront land as public space, and 5) an opportunity for public scrutiny. Critical to this official change of heart was the perception that widespread appreciation of the uniqueness of the site had developed as a direct result of the Expo (Robson, 35). A timetable for the re-tender was established but after several weeks of negotiation between the Expo Authority, the state government and Brisbane City Council, it was announced that the calling of tenders would be postponed, pending the establishment of a new statutory authority to handle the planning and development of the Expo site (Massey, 5). This proposed corporation, the South Bank Corporation (SBC), was established: to promote, facilitate, carry out and control the development of land within the Corporation area in order to ensure that such development accords with the highest possible standard and is in the best interest of the people of the City of Brisbane and of Queensland (Craik, 1992, 157). The Corporation assumed the land debt of the Expo Authority and planned for a wider area of South Brisbane to put the post-Expo development in a proper planning context. In order to pay off the debt of $150 - $200 million, the Corporation would sell off developable parcels of property over time as the real estate market improved. The fear was that this would lead to a non-integrated series of  46 developments that would evade concerted public participation (Craik, 107). Again, it was stated that the development of the Expo site and any wider planning proposals would be subject to public input and reflect the changed perceptions and expectations for the area. The Corporation is to have equal representation from the state government and the Brisbane City Council and be directly answerable to the premier. This will formally give the Brisbane City Council an equal say in determining the future of the site, a major turnaround from the situation where Council involvement was by invitation only. Planning excellence is now intended to be the driving force for the future development of the Expo site, not merely the imperative of staging Expo at no cost to the taxpayer. Part of the rationale for the new Corporation was the belief that a lower intensity of development could be sustained on the Expo site itself, through the acquisition and redevelopment of land in the surrounding area by the Corporation. It was felt that because of its dominant position, and the fact that it would be a catalyst to determine the future use of the surrounding area, the Expo site should not be planned in isolation. Under the South Bank Corporation Act 1989, the Brisbane City Council is required to prepare a development plan for the South Bank Complementary Development Area (Brisbane Dept of Planning, SBADP, 1). An interim committee, under the auspices of the Expo Authority and with representation from the Expo Authority, state government and Brisbane City Council, was established to provide advice to the premier about planning policies and legislation requirements. Representatives of the Expo Authority, state government and Brisbane City Council inspected two large redevelopment schemes in Australia under the control of special purpose authorities, to assist in the establishment of the proposed SBC and in the preparation of planning guidelines for post-Expo development. A subsequent inspection was undertaken of a series of development projects in Europe and the United States ("Expo Blight"; Walker, 1; Sweetapple, 1). A major lesson of this study was that inner-city renewal requires  47 substantial public sector intervention in the form of public funding and incentives to development (Robson, 40). Brisbane City Council's major involvement was the preparation of a Statement of Principles for the development of the area. The wider area includes residential areas, industrial and commercial development, shopping facilities, educational establishments, health facilities, and open space and recreation areas. The Statement of Principles establishes overall goals for the development of the area, identifies the development potential of the area, establishes general principles for the orderly development of the area, and enunciates specific objectives for the development of particular precincts or for key functional elements. The Statement, therefore, provides a framework for more detailed planning on particular precincts or functional elements (Gibson, 34). At this time a detailed set of Urban Design Themes and Objectives was published to help guide and control future development. The major design theme is described as "The Park Within the Building Within the Park" (SBC, Development Plan, Part B, 15). This theme is based on the "blurring of the interface between buildings and outdoor space" (SBC, Development Plan, Part B, 122). It is a strong expression of the relaxed sub-tropical southeast Queensland lifestyle. In traditional Queensland architecture this interactive zone "where part of the inside is outside and part of the outside is inside" is the verandah (SBC, Development Plan, Part A, 6). The landscaping within the development area has been used to "create a unifying theme, establish a special identity within the site and distinguish it from present and future projects within the region, country and indeed the world" (SBC, Development Plan, Part A, 9). The overall built form promotes a gradual terracing of structures in keeping with both the riverside and parkland setting and the desire to protect view corridors. "The scale and passivity of the river will be enhanced by keeping the structures relatively low and as far back from the river's edge as possible" (SBC Development Plan, Part A, 8).  48 Most activities are focused on the element of water and recreational amenities. The development encourages the use of water throughout the 14.9 hectare (36.8 acre) waterfront park and development of water-based transportation networks throughout the site. Water is one of the most magnetising and compelling of all design elements, few people can ignore or fail to react to its presence in the landscape. People are lured towards it for its audiovisual and recreational uses. It may take on such diverse characteristics as being still and in repose, or falling with animation and fervour. Fountains, waterfalls and pools exhibit qualities of light, colour, sound and movement which will assist in reinforcing the sub-tropical atmosphere and add interest to open spaces, complementing the "Park" theme (SBC, Development Plan, Part A, 12). As well as being the visual vestibule between the Central Business District and South Bank, the river links nearly every Brisbane home via creek, gully and ridge to South Bank. This river connection infuses the development structure and predicates every landscaping design decision (SBC, Development Plan, Part B, 114). The SBC abandoned all previous plans and called for proposals from five architectural firms. On August 8, 1989 a Gold Coast firm, Media Five, was chosen as the master architect. Plans released for development of the site outlined a $Albillion people place. The plan called for a mix of residential, commercial, retail, tourist and entertainment facilities in nine planning precincts. The SBC planned to begin work on the public areas early in 1990 with completion of most public facilities by 1992. Land blocks for various components of private development would be released gradually in stages worth A$100 million. Developers are required to follow the Master Development Plan prepared by Media Five with no structure to be over eight stories. "This plan will create a landmark South Bank with distinct Queensland look and feel.. . . It captures the spirit of Expo in an exciting and visually stunning fashion and extends the vision for the South Bank into the next century" (Cameron, 1). However, the SBC, under pressure from over 60 architects and the public, was forced to revise the Media Five plan (Doughty, 1).  49 3.1.2  South Bank Land Use and Design Concept On April 26, 1990 the Media Five plan was approved by the Queensland State Government  and Brisbane City Council following almost seven years of planning, controversy and politicking over the site (Franklin, 9). The controversy was highlighted by an extraordinary public desire to be involved in the redevelopment, and widespread confusion by government authorities at all levels as they struggled to come to grips with the public's push to be heard. The final plans were the third set to be produced since the World Exposition began in April 1988. The politics of Expo 88 have borne uncanny resemblance to those of Expo 86. . . . The apparently specific and idiosyncratic concerns of local community groups adjacent to each exposition site have international parallels. Their concerns are not isolated or marginal. . . . In this process [planning], the role of public input has never been well established beyond reaction, opposition and intervention which may result in modification to existing plans (Craik, 107). The 43 hectare (106 acre) development includes a trade and convention centre, two hotels, commercial and retail space, art, entertainment and cultural facilities, and 350 residential apartments (Figure 3-3). Public areas of the development occupy almost a third of the 43 hectare (106 acre) site. "We have designed the concept as a place where people can live and work and at the same time enjoy a relaxed Queensland outdoor lifestyle" (Rankin, 3; Church, 5). The development includes $A125 million for the South Bank Parklands largely paid for by the public (Voisey, 1). The Parklands are a 16 hectare (39.5 acre) multi-purpose recreational, entertainment and cultural development set on the banks of the Brisbane River (Figure 3-4). The development is ". . . based on a theme of water. The plan creates a peoples' place parkland for the community within a mixed-use resort for workers, residents and visitors" (Craik, 1992, 157).  52 Public facilities include waterways, a water taxi service, a wildlife sanctuary, a 250-meter (820 foot) salt water beach, a riverside promenade, a rainforest, a 3000 seat covered outdoor entertainment piazza, the Queensland State Conservatory of Music, a water garden, a butterfly house, restaurants and retail shops. Extending down the spine of the South Bank Parklands and connecting all of the development is Stanley Street Plaza. At the east end, the plaza connects the Parklands with the Queensland State Art Gallery, Museum, Performing Arts Centre, and Library; the University of Queensland Conservatory of Music; the $170 million Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre and the Ramada Convention Hotel. This end also serves as the formal entrance to the Parklands, which is enhanced with a series of courtyards, water fountains, public art, a large public events plaza and visitor centre. At the west end of the development, the Stanley Street Plaza connects with the Queensland State Maritime Museum and Drydock (Figure 3-5). In addition to the recreational and cultural facilities, the Parklands will create nearly 12,800 jobs and untold indirect economic activity. The development concept is to integrate the Parklands' recreational, cultural and entertainment facilities by a system of courtyards, plazas and riverside promenades with retail and commercial space and 350 market residential units. However, there is serious doubt about the ability of the Corporation to fill the office space: The question must be asked, who is going to fill it? . . . It's hard to imagine the private sector taking up all of the 300,000 square meters of space even if it were to build it over a 10-year period . . . hardly an attractive position when South Bank's vacancy rates are heading in an opposite direction (Elliot, "How"). Appendix 1 provides a detailed Land Use Summary of the South Bank development in comparison to all other case studies.  53a c<"> >/->  54 3.2  H O N E Y S U C K L E : NEWCASTLE, NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA  3.2.0  Urban and Regional Issues Newcastle is an industrial port city situated on the central coast of New South Wales,  Australia, 160 kilometers north of Sydney, the state capital. Newcastle is the sixth largest metropolitan area in Australia and the capital of the nation's third largest region — the Hunter. The city's current population is 131,309 (1991). The Hunter Region population is 560,000 (1991) and estimated to reach 604,000 to 661,000 by 2011 (Devine, 18). In a 1992 survey by Australian Business Monthly to determine the best Australian city in which to live, Newcastle ranked number one. The city is located on the Pacific Ocean with 16 beaches, negligible water pollution, a near perfect climate, and easy access to five national parks (Figure 3-6). Newcastle also has three times the national average of open space per person, little traffic congestion and public transportation is good. Unemployment is lower than the national average and house prices are affordable with the lowest medium house prices of Australia's seven major cites ("Provincial Paradise"; Riley). Structural changes during the past 20 years have resulted in significant changes in employment in the local economy. Newcastle's once dominant industrial-based economy is slowly disappearing and there is now a need to attract more tertiary industries to develop a strong economic base (Maunsell, 30). The major problem with the city is that poor planning has situated most of its industry in the centre of town on the harbour which has contributed to soil contamination (Maunsell, 11). The water quality in the vicinity of the Honeysuckle Project area indicates degraded water quality resulting from industrial run-off. As a result, recreational uses are limited. The proposed development will improve the water quality due to a shift to fewer industrial uses in the area and increasing pressure for existing industries to reduce their waste discharge.  56 The community will place higher expectations on water quality as they reclaim their waterfront. Any shoreline excavation for construction of marinas, sea walls and ornamental water features will be limited in order to prevent any degradation of the water quality (Maunsell, 40). The redevelopment of the Honeysuckle site has the opportunity to dramatically change the poor image of the city through sensitive design and the development of a proper mix of uses. The plan also calls for the inclusion of Ecological Sustainable Development (ESD) in the housing strategy. The objective of ESD is to "minimize the impacts arising from development or habitation upon biological diversity" (NSW Dept. of Planning, BBC Newsletter, No. 4/Feb. 94). ESD principles for urban development, housing and Inner Newcastle include: 1) dense mixed use settlements; 2) housing close to work, services and amenities; 3) reusing and recycling of waste water; 4) maximization of solar energy; 5) use of natural ventilation; 6) use of energy efficient materials; 7) preference for non-elevator buildings; 8) energy efficient appliances; and 9) water conservation in construction, appliances and landscape design (NSW Dept. of Planning, BBC Newsletter, No. 4/Feb. 94). Additional environmental and quality of life benefits that will result from the development include: 1) reduced pressure for urban growth on the city's fringe; 2) restoration and adaptive reuse of heritage buildings; 3) reduced reliance on private transport and reduced travel time to work; 4) better coordinated and planned environmentally sensitive development; and 5) reduced pressure on Sydney's urban fringe resulting from the provision of an alternative for redistribution of growing government services into provincial cities (HDC, Strategy & Business Plan, 29). In addition to Newcastle's poor image, the city and region suffer from being in the shadow of Sydney's strong regional growth. Although Newcastle's proximity to Sydney can be seen as a benefit in that its economy can be linked to that of Australia's largest city, this proximity also means that many of the state's administrative functions, which could be located in Newcastle, remain in Sydney.  57 With the centre of Newcastle only 160 kilometers from the Sydney CBD, Sydney has captured much of the administrative activity associated with the Hunter Region and Newcastle itself (Devine, 18). In spite of this, the second largest employer of Newcastle and inner suburban residents is the state government. Newcastle has been the dominant administrative centre of the Hunter region since the last century. Therefore, a major objective of the New South Wales government is to re-establish Newcastle as a dominant regional capital city. The Honeysuckle Project is viewed as the instrument by which this can be achieved. The Hunter region's economy is important in the state context in terms of its strategic industries, its above average contribution to output and exports, its infrastructure and growth potential. Crucial to underpinning the Hunter's economic growth is the revitalization of Newcastle's CBD. Honeysuckle is one of the keys to this revitalization. . . . Honeysuckle is much more than just a land redevelopment and disposal exercise. It is a project with significant social, economic, physical, environmental and financial impacts for the local community, region and state (HDC, Honeysuckle, 2). Appendix 4, Table 9 summarizes the New South Wales government's regional objectives for Newcastle and the Honeysuckle Project. In order to achieve its objective of providing more employment opportunities, Newcastle hopes to convince the state government to decentralize certain government services to Newcastle and to designate Newcastle as a regional economic growth centre. Relocation of state agencies to Newcastle would also act as a catalyst to attract a number of private sector branch and head offices to the city (Devine, 21). For the Newcastle CBD to accommodate new office development, the city must be capable of providing modern, high quality office buildings and strategically located building sites. Thus, major objectives for the Honeysuckle redevelopment are: 1) to develop modern commercial office space, 2) to create an image of the CBD as a dynamic regional centre of commerce, 3) to provide cultural and recreational facilities, and 4) to provide housing associated with the waterfront, close to the CBD (Devine, 22). Appendix 4 Table 10 lists city objectives for Honeysuckle.  58 Two trends are currently affecting the inner city residential areas of Newcastle: inner-city population loss and gentrification. A contributing factor is the loss of jobs in the CBD. To reverse these trends there is a need to increase the amount of housing stock, upgrade certain areas, and to provide a broad option of housing types and price ranges (Devine, 16). In addition, Newcastle's inner-city suburbs, as with Brisbane's and Sydney's, are becoming increasingly attractive to middle and upper income earners who have recognized the value of living close to the CBD where the highest paid jobs are usually located. Inner-city housing also becomes more attractive when located adjacent to the best recreational amenities such as harbours and beaches. To handle the demand, 8  current forecasts indicate that an additional 7000 dwellings could be supplied to the inner-city over the next 20 years with 4200 units in the first 10 years (NSW Dept. of Planning, BBC Newsletter, No. 4/Feb. 94). Recognizing these two trends, a primary objective of Honeysuckle is to provide opportunities for additional residential development adjacent to the CBD. As a result, 50 percent or 22.5 hectares of the site is residential with 16 hectares set aside for employment. The Honeysuckle Development Project (HDC) anticipates that providing a large residential component will stimulate revitalization of adjacent residential areas (Devine, 30). Newcastle also recognizes the need to ensure affordable housing is maintained in and around the centre. The Department of Housing has over 3000 households currently on its waiting list for public housing. As part of the A$100 million provided for Honeysuckle under the Building Better Cities (BBC) program, projects are to ensure that a section of the residential area meet "affordable housing" criteria. To meet this requirement, the Honeysuckle development will include up to 150 9  medium density affordable housing units. Other strategies are: 1) to provide high quality waterfront housing adjacent to the CBD that will attract residents from Sydney, making Newcastle the most attractive of the decentralization  59 options being considered by the state government (Devine, 30); 2) to provide medium density living associated with marinas and other boating facilities that are accessible to the CBD by ferry; and 3) to develop former waterfront industrial and warehouse areas into housing which would enhance the attractiveness of the whole inner area suburbs. One of the main approaches to new urban form and residential intensification in Honeysuckle is the use of "Shoptop" housing which, essentially, is mixed commercial and residential projects. This type of housing is being used in commercial areas as an option for utilizing unused or under-used commercial floor space. Various incentives are offered to encourage this type of development. In addition, it provides the owners and developers with an opportunity to yield an additional return on property that has been lying idle and unprofitable. The BBC program has allocated $5.5 million for development of a number of innovative residential/mixed use demonstration projects (NSW Dept. of Housing, BBC Newsletter, No. 4/Feb.l994). In October 1993 the first parcel of property for residential development sold. HDC anticipates that over $10 million will be injected in developing the 145 units of medium density dwellings. The 3.89 hectare Carrington Residential Precinct will be home to 400 residents and include a variety of high quality affordable housing types. The development will include community facilities, a major foreshore park and improved access (NSW PSG, Carrington, 10). The second residential development to get underway is the restoration and adaptive reuse of the 1906 Wickham School. The HDC will manage the restoration and development. The historic school building will provide 22 one bedroom and bedsitter units and should be ready in 1995. An additional 20 medium density affordable units will be constructed as part of the residential development adjacent to the school (NSW PSG, "Heritage," Property Matters Newsletter, 10).  60 3.2.1  Planning for Honeysuckle 1986-1992 In 1986, as part of a review of its property holdings, the New South Wales (NSW) state  government designated 45 hectares (111 acres) of land adjacent to the CBD and fronting on the harbour for redevelopment.  10  That same year the Newcastle City Council held a series of meetings to  develop a framework for the revitalization of Newcastle. In 1987 the State Rail Authority (SRA) identified the Honeysuckle Rail and Goods Yard as surplus to its future requirements. In 1990 the heavy rail line at Civic Station was terminated. That same year, as part of rationalizing state land holdings, the government agreed to transfer surplus Maritime Services Board (MSB) and SRA lands to the Honeysuckle Project. The Honeysuckle Advisory Board was established in 1990 to undertake detailed planning and community consultation for the redevelopment of the Honeysuckle site. In addition to the need to revitalize surplus rail and port land, the Newcastle CBD had experienced a severe loss of population, employment and retail business (HDC, Strategy and Business Plan, 48).  11  In 1991, to offset this  trend, a master planning process was begun to identify the options for making the best use of the site. Six key objectives were developed for the Honeysuckle site and 22 planning principles stated to achieve these objectives. The key principles and objectives are summarized in Appendix 4, Tables 10 and 11. From the initial community consultation which began in 1986 through to the exhibition of the Concept Master Plan in 1991, the community has been consulted and involved in the planning process.  12  After the initial presentation of the plan, the public was given two months to view the plan  and present their opinions before the master plan, along with a business plan, were submitted to the state government.  13  In order to ensure that the master plan reflected the community's vision and had its support, the Hunter Valley Research Foundation (HVRF) conducted extensive community surveys on behalf of  61 the Honeysuckle Project. The results of the survey indicated a majority of people had knowledge of the project and were in favour of it and the land-use options. The elements of the project that received the strongest support were: 1) opening access to the waterfront and the CBD, 2) providing cultural and entertainment facilities, 3) improving the public transport system, and 4) providing open space. The HVRF also conducts quarterly community attitudes surveys and regular briefings with local business and community groups, schools, and investors (HDC, Strategy and Business Plan, May 1993, 16).  14  In 1992, the Honeysuckle Development Corporation (HDC) was established under an act of parliament.  15  The mission of the HDC is to:  Co-ordinate the redevelopment of surplus government rail and port related land and, through professional management and community input, create at Honeysuckle a world class project which will act as a catalyst for the revitalization of Newcastle, optimising social, economic and environmental benefits for the community (HDC, Strategy & Business Plan, 6). The HDC has overall responsibility for the redevelopment process. The HDC's objective is to market the land to the private sector, thereby passing on the development risk and offsetting the upfront funding of the infrastructure from the land sales and leases and developers' contributions (HDC, Strategy & Business Plan, 47). The HDC acts as the project manager on behalf of the NSW Property Services Group (PSG). Development consent powers remain with the Newcastle City Council. The PSG provides the administrative support to the Honeysuckle Development Corporation (HDC, Strategy & Business Plan, 35). In addition to state planning legislation and policies, planning within the Honeysuckle site is affected by eight major regional and local planning documents. Public financing for the project will come from the joint Commonwealth and New South Wales Government Building Better Cities Program (BBC).  16  Funds are provided to improve infrastructure in order to  encourage private sector participation and to reduce their risk in the development of commercial opportunities in the area. The government will also be "priming the pump" with tax incentives and  62 pre-commitments for large office space area to further enhance the commercial success of the development. Research for the development showed that without infrastructure improvements in the early years, the market opportunities for the sale of such large parcels of land were few. In fact, without a major "kickstart" from the government, the land could remain idle for years (HDC, Strategy & Business Plan, May 1993, 2). The State Department of Planning is the BBC program coordinator and is responsible for operation of the program in NSW. The program will provide $A100 million to the project. In 17  1992-93 $18 million was committed to infrastructure improvements on the Honeysuckle site and $27.8 million was committed for 1993-94 (NSW Dept. of Planning, BBC Newsletter, No. 3/Jan. 94, 1-5).  18  The government was willing to invest in the Honeysuckle Project because of the importance to the state of the Hunter Region's economy. Crucial to the Hunter's economic growth is the revitalization of the Newcastle CBD and the Honeysuckle development is central to this revitalization. It provides the opportunity and impetus to strengthen the city's tourism, administrative, retail, recreation, commercial and cultural functions (HDC, Strategy and Business Plan, May 1993, 6) Figures from the HVRF predict that there will be significant benefits to local business and the community and regional economy.  19  Other economic benefits include improved use and cost  efficiency of underutilized urban infrastructure, diversification of the Hunter's economic and employment base, revitalization of the CBD and infrastructure, rationalization of Port Authority property, and utilization of non-productive government lands (HDC, Strategy & Business Plan, 26).  63 3.2.2  Honeysuckle Land Use and Design Concept The Honeysuckle development is a 20 year redevelopment of 45 hectares (111 acres) of  surplus state government land adjacent to Newcastle's CBD and harbour. The master plan concept calls for medium and high-density housing for 3,000-5,000 residents in 1,500-2,500 dwellings on 50 percent of the site. Commercial and mixed use space would accommodate a workforce of 5,000 to 8,000 people, include two hotels with up to 260 rooms and conference facilities for up to 600. Public open spaces and landscaped areas cover over 20 percent of the site, including a marina with 180 berths for recreational and commercial boats, a continuous foreshore promenade and landscaping of the closed rail corridor (Figure 3-7). Adaptive reuse of heritage buildings include reusing the Newcastle Rail Station as a boutique and hotel, recycling the heritage railway buildings in the Goods and Services yards for activities such as specialty retailing or markets, and reusing the 1908 Wickham School for residential apartments (Shortland, 4-5). The Honeysuckle development will also act as a catalyst for off-site development within the CBD (HDC, Business & Strategy Plan, 11-13). Central to the proposal is the termination of the rail line at the Civic Station, and removal of existing rail lines to allow the relocation of the rail-based activities and free up waterfront land. This would permit the linking of the city's CBD with the harbour and allow Newcastle workerseasy access to their foreshore (Williams, City Plan). Newcastle has one of the best preserved 19th and early 20th century maritime commercial centres in the world. Most of the building stock is suitable for adaptive reuse to modern functions and is of immense value as an historical and tourism attraction. Accordingly, the underlying urban design concept for Honeysuckle is to preserve this valuable heritage asset without inhibiting the future growth of the centre.  6 4  65 In recognition of the fact that Newcastle has a character worth retaining and reinforcing, the guidelines place priority on encouraging future development to recognize and respond sympathetically to the existing city fabric. . . . The guidelines place emphasis on maintaining the relationship to the unique setting in which the city exists; . . . and in adopting appropriate conservation practices (Devine, 1) The philosophy believes that reinforcing the existing Newcastle centre historic character will also strengthen the desirable environment for specialized shopping. Retailing and conservation are highly compatible and by preserving and building upon the existing historic areas the whole city can benefit, thus encouraging investment in new structures in other parts of the city. . . . The historic area should not be treated as a museum, rather it should house businesses which desire this sort of character to reflect the small scale of their needs and those who wish certain individuality (Devine, 25). The existing built form is generally two to four storey buildings richly accented with the details characteristic of the period. This characteristic has been included in the urban design guidelines as important for preservation and recognition in new structures built adjacent to these historic areas. This limitation has resulted in severely restricting the development of large, modern office buildings in the CBD. As a result, the opportunity cost for waterfront locations has not been maximized. However, part of the Honeysuckle site will be developed with large scale modern structures to take redevelopment pressure off the historic precincts. In addition to the visual appeal of the historic buildings and streetscapes, these heritage areas offer a recurring theme of the importance of industry and technology in the evolution of Newcastle. Retention and restoration of these historic structures offers considerable potential as a focus not only for commercial purposes, but as a focus for industrial or educational purposes with emphasis on technological development. Such use would be compatible with the traditional functions as well as reinforcing a local approach to the urban redevelopment of Newcastle, rather than a tourism-based approach (Maunsell, 42). The development is divided into six precincts: 1) Civic Heritage consisting of five historic rail workshops and the recently restored 1883 Divisional Engineers Office. The intent of this precinct is to  66 restore the heritage buildings and reuse them for markets and specialty retailing. The area would also serve tourism, entertainment, cultural and community uses (Figure 3-8). 2) The Employment and Mixed Use Residential Precinct will provide for mixed commercial and high density residential as well as entertainment, cultural and public facilities (Figure 3-9). 3) The Carrington Residential Precinct will be a new residential area developed on partially reclaimed land. The site will consist of up to 145 medium density dwellings, landscaped parkways and extensive cycle and pedestrian paths. 4) The adjacent Wickham Residential Precinct will be developed into 400 medium density dwellings. The two precincts will be connected by a new bridge and could house up to 3,000 new residents (Figure 3-10). 5) The Marina Precinct will provide up to 180 recreational berths and 49 berths for fishing fleet as well as service and commercial facilities (Figure 3-11). 6) The Residential and Mixed Use Precinct includes the restoration of the 1906 Wickham School into 22 residential units. The surrounding property will be developed into 50 medium density dwellings (HDC, Info Update No. 4). Appendix 1 provides a detailed Land Use Summary for the Honeysuckle development.  3.3  CITY WEST URBAN STRATEGY SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES, AUSTRALIA  3.3.0  Urban and Regional Strategy Sydney is Australia's largest and financial, commercial and tourism centre of the nation. It is  the capital of the state of New South Wales and the centre of government services. Sydney is a 20  major contributor to economic growth and employment both regionally and nationally. It is Australia's largest employment centre with 1.8 million workers, representing 21 percent of the national workforce (NSW Dept. of Planning, RES, 9). Its population of over 3.6 million people (1990) is close to two-thirds of the state's population. The regional population is expected to reach 4.5 million by 2011. Accordingly, Sydney is faced with the challenge of accommodating almost another one million people over the next 20 years (NSW Dept. of Planning, RES, 8).  6 8  6 9  71 City West has a key location in the Sydney region and has the potential to be a major contributor to the economic growth of the Sydney region (Figure 3-12). To enhance this opportunity, City West will be developed to "world city" standards. A key focus of the development is to provide innovative telecommunications and infrastructure technology to attract corporate headquarters from throughout the Pacific Rim. Six major objectives emphasize the importance of the City West development as a stimulator of regional growth. These objectives have been summarizedin Appendix 6, Table 16. According to Australia Business Monthly's survey of "The Best City in Australia," Sydney has the highest house prices in the country and the least affordable housing market of all capital cities, rising at an average yearly rate of 6.27 percent. In the central city areas, housing prices are escalating as high income earners choose to locate close to the CBD, accelerating the gentrification of the inner suburbs and the displacement of the low and middle income households to the outer suburbs. Demand for low rent housing within the City West area is almost three times that of the rest of Sydney and is expected to grow. The demand results from higher rents for new market housing being built in the area which is considerably above current levels. Local land values are also expected to rise considerably due to the process of gentrification and the attraction of living in the City West area close to the CBD and all of the associated amenities (Bowman Street Master Plan, 3). According to ABM's survey of "The Best Cities in Australia," Sydney has the worst pollution problem of any of the cities surveyed ("Provincial Paradise"). Therefore, environmental improvement and ecologically sustainable development are priorities for the City West development. The City West environmental and ecological objectives conform with the four goals established in Sydney's Future as essential for planning the region's future. These goals are: equity, efficiency, environmental quality and liveability.  Figure 3-12 View of Sydney and City West Area  Source: City West Urban Strategy-Planning Opportunities  73 Equity will be achieved by providing equitable availability of urban resources and equitable access to employment, housing, education, health services and recreation. Efficiency will be achieved by providing an efficient spatial arrangement of activities, employment, recreation, and human services. Environmental quality will be achieved by providing ecologically sustainable development, improved health through reduction or prevention of exposure to harmful environmental pollutants, and the protection, restoration or enhancement of the quality of environmental resources. Finally, liveability will be achieved by providing urban form which provides security, identity and historic continuity; a sustainable, comfortable and healthy environment with good access; diversity, choice and affordable housing; and opportunity, diversity and choice in employment (Sydney's Future, 24) Both regional and urban transportation strategies are key to the success of City West. Surplus rail land will form a major component of the City West development.The implmetation of the State Rail Authority's redevelopment strategy is therefor critical to the future of City West. In addition full realization of City West's potential for employment and population growth depends on a high level of public transport. The proposed maximum number of workers and residents is only feasible if a high modal split in favour of public transport is achieved. To achieve this a number of public transport improvements are planned these include: 1) provision of a new light rail mass transit link, 2) construction of an additional passenger rail line, 3) development of an integrated public transit system between ferry, bus and rail, 4) development of an effecient pedestrian and cycle pathway system and 5) construction of a foreshore ring road (NSW Dept of Planning, RES 14-21).  3.3.1  Planning for City West - 1989 As Sydney expands, the environmental, social and financial costs of growth are becoming an  increasing concern for governments. The concept for the City West Urban Strategy evolved from the need to accommodate and contain Sydney's expected population growth and the need for "urban  74 consolidation." The process of 'urban consolidation' is the redevelopment of inner-city housing either by demolition and rebuilding, by turning single family units into multi-unit dwellings, or building additional units on large lots. City West provides the opportunity on a major scale for 21  urban consolidation and to accommodate expected population growth in established inner city areas. A primary goal of the City West Urban Strategy is to provide a socially-mixed inner-city population. The strategy calls for a population increase of 25,000 to 30,000 residents.  22  To  accomplish this goal, a prime objective is to provide affordable housing to a wide range of income groups which will encourage a diverse population mix. Under the City West Affordable Housing Programme, units will target very low, low, and moderate family incomes (CWDC, Annual Report 92/93,16). A broad population mix will also make efficient use of public transportation services, 23  employment opportunities, and support public infrastructure such as community services, day-care facilities and educational institutions. A wider range of housing price, size and type also supports the strategy of increased densities within the inner-city. This strategy assumes that a neighbourhood "with a socially mixed population is more likely to develop into a successful urban community than a monocultural dormitory suburb. . . . A mixed population will contribute to the social integration of the new community with existing populations in and adjacent to City West" (NSW Dept. of Planning, RES, 27). A coordinated process of planning and development has been established to ensure that development occurs in an orderly manner and within a single framework of clear and consistent planning principles (NSW Dept. of Planning, RES, 1). The first step in the City West planning process was the development of the City West Urban Strategy.  24  The City West Urban Strategy is a 30 year, 300 hectare (741 acre) inner-city  redevelopment plan for Sydney. As the major land owner in the area, the strategy was prepared by the NSW State Government Department of Planning, with input from a project team made up of various state government departments and coordinated by the Department of State Development. The  75 strategy evolved from several previous planning strategies and identifies the broad nature, intensity and form of development emphasizing regional policies. The document is a guide that defines the area of change and establishes a broad set of goals, objectives and policies and provides the overall planning framework. The strategy defines five general policy areas: land use, physical environment, transport, infrastructure and community facilities, and implementation. The policies are then applied to each of the four precincts within the City West area and specific objectives developed for each precinct according to its particular requirements. The City West Urban Strategy was placed on public exhibition in October 1990. The key development objectives for the City West Urban Strategy are summarized in Appendix 6, Table 17. The strategy also developed a set of planning principles to direct future planning and development in City West. These principles emphasize the public domain, heritage conservation, environmental management, public transportation and pedestrian circulation, developer contributions for the cost of infrastructure, and a variety of land use activities suitable for inner-city living. Appendix 6, Table 18 gives the key development principles for the City West Urban Strategy. The NSW planning legislation requires that a Regional Environmental Study (RES) precede the preparation of any development plans. The City West Regional Environmental Study (RES) summarizes the background to the City West Urban Strategy, discusses the role of City West within the Sydney Region, and assesses the development under six criteria. These are: transport, physical environment, economic and energy efficiency, market demand and development opportunities, and infrastructure capacity and funding (RES, 2). A specific study for each precinct forms part of the study. The community expressed strong concern of consultation with it. As a result, a local office for the preparation of the Regional Environmental Plan (REP) was established adjacent to the City West area to maintain close contact with the community. In March 1991, the Minister for Planning 25  76 announced that a draft Regional Environmental Plan (REP) and draft Urban Development Plan (UDP) would be prepared to implement planning for City West. The state government decided to proceed with a Regional Environmental Plan (REP) because of the regional and state issues involved in the redevelopment area. These issues included: 1) the involvement of three local government areas and a section of Sydney Harbour, 2) the complex land ownership, 3) urban consolidation, 4) affordable housing, 5) port and tourism strategies, 6) disposal policies for government lands, 6) the need to coordinate infrastructure, and 7) the scale and location of the project. The draft plan establishes a regional framework of planning principles for the City West area as a whole and provides the basis for consistent, coordinated and cohesive redevelopment over the 30 year time frame (RES, 1-7). These principles deal with urban design and public domain, land use activities, waterways/foreshore, heritage conservation, living and working environment, transport, coordination flexibility, and infrastructure. Urban Development Plans (UDP) are prepared to supplement the provisions of the REP. These documents are the equivalent of a local development control plan. "The principal objective of the UDP is to ensure that detailed planning and urban design controls reflect and complement the principles and controls in the REP to assist in achieving a built environment of a high standard in each precinct" (Ultimo-Pyrmont UDP, 1). The development plans for each of the precincts are published as part of the REP. The UDP for each precinct is intended to give developers and architects clear direction on the type of development which will be accepted in each precinct and to assist the public in understanding the future character of the precinct. Finally, the master plans which develop the vision of the REP and integrate the Regional Environmental Plans and Urban Strategy are developed (NSW PSG, Pyrmont Bay Master Plan, ii).  26  The objectives of the plans are: 1) to establish the infrastructure requirements and principles, 2) to guide developers and authorities on the acceptable types of development, 3) to enable development to  77  proceed, 4) to provide understanding of the future character of the area, 5) to encourage community participation, and 6) to provide guidelines for evaluation of development applications. Master plans allow sub-division of the land into developable parcels to proceed, providing options for development and attracting a wide range of private investors (City West Briefing,Issue 4.1, Oct. 93).  27  The plan  requires that development proposals "contribute to the acquisition and enhancement of the public domain and the provision of physical and social infrastructure. . . . Public space should be provided and funded by the development process" (NSW Dept. of Planning, REP, 8). Finally, the development process allows for variations as long as they are consistent with the principles of the plan and only in exchange for the provision of affordable housing. The City West project is being implemented by the City West Development Corporation (CWDC), a Crown Corporation formed by the NSW state government in September 1992. The CWDC is staffed by members of the Property Services Group (PSG) and directed by a six member board that reports through the Chairman to the NSW Minister for Planning. The CWDC does not have planning consent authority — the authority is vested in the Minister for Planning. The PSG is a department within the NSW Department of Planning and is responsible for management of government assets and the administrative support for the Development Corporation. The responsibilities of the CWDC are: 1) to complete master plans, 2) to subdivide land into developable parcels, 3) to manage government land holdings, 4) to provide essential infrastructure, 5) to perform environmental assessment, 6) to allow for community participation, and 7) to promote orderly development and investment. The key role of the Corporation is to create catalysts for private sector development. The Corporation will provide the infrastructure throughout the City West region including better access roads, new or upgraded services, improved public transportation systems, public and community amenities, landscaping , streetscaping, parks and open space and pedestrian and cycle paths (CWDC, Annual Report 1992-93). The Corporation is also responsible for completing  78 detailed environmental assessment followed by the preparation of detailed master plans for each redevelopment area.  28  Current master plans are being prepared or have been completed for Pyrmont Bay, Pyrmont Point, Saunders Street, the Fish Market areas and the Eveleigh Precinct. The Municipal Planning Authority does not have jurisdiction over the state lands; however, it is the approval authority for any private lands being developed within the City West (or Honeysuckle) development areas. Public financing, as with the Honeysuckle Project in Newcastle, will be provided by the federal and state governments under the Building Better Cities Program (BBC). Total funds committed over the next four years will amount to $560 million. In the Ultimo-Pyrmont Precinct funds will total $241 million between 1992 and 1996.  29  These funds will pay for public housing,  start-up costs for the Ultimo-Pyrmont Light Rail project, pedestrian/cyclist improvements, upgrading child care facilities, open space improvements, restoration of wharfs, foreshore improvements, and upgrading of infrastructure. In the Eveleigh precinct the funds will provide an additional 100 affordable housing units, student accommodation and serviced apartments, pedestrian/cyclist improvements, and $25 million for development of an Advanced Technology Park. Development levies from private developers will finance other social and community benefits as well as improvements to physical infrastructure. State funds for the development will be derived from the sale of development parcels (City West Briefing, Issue 3, Oct. 93).  3.3.2  City West Land Use and Design Concept The City West Urban Strategy represents urban redevelopment and consolidation on a  magnitude never before attempted in Australia. The City West vision sees a 30 year redevelopment of over 300 hectares (741 acres) of underutilized inner-city land providing a significant economic stimulus for the local and regional economies. The development estimates that 75,000 to 80,000 jobs will be created.  30  Housing will be developed for 25,000 to 35,000 new residents to live, work and  79 play on the edge of the Sydney Harbour. Ten kilometers (6.2 miles) of Sydney waterfront will be reopened, providing waterfront access for Sydney residents and a range of recreational activities. The development will also provide 22 hectares (54 acres) of open space, landscaped parks, a comprehensive network of cycle arid pedestrian paths and a new rail service using existing lines (NSW Dept. of Planning, City West Urban Strategy, 8). The strategy comprises four precincts: Pyrmont/Ultimo Peninsula, Eveleigh Goods Yard, The Bays, and Central Railway (Figure 3-13). The City West design strategy is to develop each of the four precincts in a coherent form, with its own recognizable character based on its topography, harbour setting, heritage buildings and distinct qualities. In general, the urban design for City West follows the broad principles established in Sydney's Future. These principles have been summarized in Appendix 6, Table 19. Three components contribute to the urban design philosophy: the public domain, the built form, and heritage items and conservation areas. The enlargement and enhancement of the public domain is one of the key design components: "The public domain will provide the structure around which City West will be developed" (NSW Dept. of Planning, City West Draft REP, 6). The key elements of the public domain will be linked through development of a foreshore promenade and provision of public spaces and recreation areas. The linked system of public areas will use extensive landscaping to unify the old and new areas. Built form will use development controls to: 1) encourage innovative design, 2) ensure that new development complements public parks and enhances the public domain, 3) create a distinct character within each precinct, 4) protect views and vistas 5) create a transition from the low-rise suburbs to the high-rise city centre, and 6) to conserve and enhance preservation and adaptive reuse of heritage structures.  80  o  81 The strongest influence on the design philosophy is the significant potential the four precincts have for adaptive reuse of heritage structures. The Ultimo-Pyrmont Precinct contains nearly two centuries of inner urban lifestyle and industrial and maritime development. Within Ultimo-Pyrmont, "City West can combine the architectural language of the 21st century with the proven attributes of traditional centres" (NSW Dept. of Planning, City West RES, 21). All of the Central Railway and Railway Square Precinct has major heritage significance. The Eveleigh Workshop Complex is a "record of a century of development of railway technology" (NSW Dept. of Planning, City West RES, 23). The Bays Precinct is full of examples of early 19th century maritime industrial structures which are a testimony to the importance of water transport in Sydney's industrial heritage. The heritage items and conservation areas are the overriding criteria for guiding urban form, scale, siting and materials and should be conserved and enhanced.  3.3.3  Pyrmont-Ultimo Precinct Masterplan Stage I of the City West project is the development of the Pyrmont/Ultimo Precinct (Figure 3-  14). This precinct is planned as a joint project between the Department of Planning and the Council of the City of Sydney. The concept calls for the redevelopment of the area into a mixed use residential neighbourhood with extensive public waterfront walks and open space. Up to 54,000 jobs are expected to be created through the redevelopment and the area's population is predicted to grow from 3,200 to 16,500 (Figure 3-15). The CWDC is coordinating the staged development of the Pyrmont Peninsula through four master plans: Pyrmont Bay, Pyrmont Point, Saunders Street, and the Fish Market (Figure 3-16). The Commonwealth Sugar Refinery (CSR) is developing its own master development plan for the site which will be closely coordinated with the CWDC master plans. Pyrmont Bay will be predominantly commercial and recreational area with development stimulated by the opening of a casino, hotel and entertainment complex.  83  Figure 3-16 Pyrmont Peninsula Masterplan Precincts  Source: Ultimo-Pyrmont Precinct Planning Study  85 Pyrmont Point and Saunders Street will be primarily residential developments. The Fish Market will be developed with new retail, recreational and transport facilities (CWDC, Briefing, Issue 2, Oct. 93). Appendix 1 provides a detailed Land Use Summary of the Pyrmont Peninsula Master Plan area compared to all other case studies. The Pyrmont Bay Master Plan was adopted in April 1993 and covers 13.4 hectares (33 acres) of underused waterfront property (Figure 3-17). The land is owned by the NSW state government and is managed by the CWDC. A gateway site will be created to integrate it with the adjacent amenities of Darling Harbour, the state Maritime Museum, the Sydney Exhibition and Convention facilities, and the state Aquarium (Figures 3-18, 3-19). "The accentuation of this corner should complement the Maritime Museum and celebrate the entry from the neighbouring Darling Harbour" (NSW PSG, Pyrmont Bay Master Plan, 11). The land use concept features upscale commercial uses, residential development, redevelopment of a second cruise ship terminal, public open space and parks, boat mooring facilities, ferry wharfs, and public access along the bay's edge. The Sydney Casino, Hotel and Entertainment complex is planned as the centrepiece of the economic redevelopment (Figure 3-20). The casino will be an immediate stimulus to economic activity, creating 3,600 direct jobs on site and another 1,500 indirect jobs off site. The facility is intended to set the stage for complementary development and to accelerate the renewal program in Pyrmont Bay and in the neighbouring Pyrmont/Ultimo Precinct (CWDC, Briefing, Issue 4.1, Oct. 93). The master plan foresees up to 1,000 residents, nearly 6,000 employees and 29,000 visitors per day.  86 Figure 3-17 Pyrmont Bay Masterplan  Source: PSG Property Matters, Vol. 1, No. 2, Sept. 1993  8 7  90 A prime attraction of the area is the ability to walk to the CBD in ten minutes using the historic Pyrmont Bridge, now a dedicated pedestrian thoroughfare crossing Darling Harbour. A network of cycle paths and a continuous foreshore park will adjoin a promenade on the water's edge and significantly extend public access to the harbour. A new foreshore boulevard will provide vehicle access to the area. The boulevard will link up with a newly created ring road which will divert through traffic away from the neighbourhood. Finally, the area will be connected to the CBD and major transport corridors by road, light rail and water service. The new rail link will connect all five of the Pyrmont Peninsula precincts with the Central Railway Precinct. A heliport is also under consideration and is currently undergoing an environmental impact assessment (City West, Briefing, Issue 4.1, Oct. 93). The second master plan, Pyrmont Point, emphasizes residential opportunities and community activities (Figure 3-21). The plan creates a medium density mixed living and working environment and allows for a population increase from 200 to over 3,000. It provides for 1,400 new residential units for 3,000 residents, allows for mixed residential/commercial use, dedicates 35 percent of the land to parks and open space, and creates 1,200 permanent jobs (CityWest, Draft Pyrmont Point, Oct. 93, 1). Open space will take advantage of the spectacular views from the cliff tops with special viewing platforms. Two new parks, one at water level and the second at cliff top, will be created and linked by stairs to form a regional park. Waterfront access is regained for public use with the creation of a continuous 4 kilometer (2.5 mile) foreshore park and promenade extending around Pyrmont Peninsula from Darling Harbour to the Fish Market (Figure 3-22). The foreshore is enhanced with the development of parks, plazas, promenades and activity strips with cafes and shops. Lower decking, small jetties, and piers will service recreational boating as well as commercial ferries (City West, Briefing, Parks & Waterfront, Oct. 93, 1).  93 The Commonwealth Sugar Refinery (CSR) master plan is being developed privately by CSR for its holdings adjoining the western boundary of Pyrmont Point and extending to the boundary with the Saunders Street master plan area. CSR is the largest private land owner in the Pyrmont Peninsula development area and is proposing to relocate operations. The CSR master plan is being closely integrated with CWDC master plans. The Saunders Street master plan transforms "a forgotten corner of Sydney into an appealing new residential environ only a couple of kilometers from the heart of Sydney" (City West, Briefing, Issue 4.2, Oct. 93). The development area was once the historic Saunders Quarry.A total of 650 dwellings will be built with provision for shops and small business. The street plan will exploit the area's dramatic natural features by enhancing the existing green belt of trees and semi-tropical foliage at the foot of the escarpment by developing it into a community park. A network of recreational paths will be created, linking the surrounding areas to new stairways leading to the cliff top (Figure 3-23). Housing will be predominantly marketed to low to medium income households, including opportunities for affordable housing (City West, Briefing Draft Saunders Street, Oct. 93 , 1) The Fish Market master plan involves the retention of wholesale marketing activities, an addition of retail and commercial floor space, and recreational space. The plan will reactivate the working waterfront and provide for a range of new facilities. It provides for rehousing existing tenants complemented by extensive public recreation areas (City West, Annual Report 92-93, 12).  3.3.4  Eveleigh Precinct Master Plan Stage II of the City West master planning process is the Eveleigh Master Plan. The Eveleigh  redevelopment site includes 14 hectares (34.5 acres) of land currently owned by the State Rail Authority (SRA) and the Department of Housing (Figure 3-24). The site includes the Redfern Rail Station and the Eveleigh Goods Yard and Workshops. Most of the site is still required for railway operations by the SRA. Future development includes upgrading rail service facilities.  •(\Z loupduj ifSppAg l  -I miduiy  'gz d3H 'SUIUUBU JO  idarj M.SN) srads usdo pire UOIIB3JO3J oqqnd 'ssamsnq apnpui  S9sn jsipo S3uozrepuapissjireius OMI ipiA\ sjusuisjinbaareuoiiBJsdoJOJ (VHS) Ajuouany IP?}[ gjB^s 9qi ^q psureiaj aq 01 3JB qoiqM sdoqs^JOM qgppAg sip jo spirei jo jgpureuraj sip SSIBJOCLIOOUI BSJB Smuirejdreurjsqj, ssnrepuapissj/repjsiuiuoopsxiiu UJIM guore SSSBIUOJJ JSSJIS pire ssjnoouoo UOTJBJS Sip UJIM P9JB100SSB SSStl JIB13J pUBrepjSUIUIOOSptipUl SSStl J U 9 U l d o p A 9 p M3U JOJ ldSOUOO 9ux "9Jis sim mqiiM sssn jofem sip ureuisj HIA\ sssn psrepossB puB suopBJsdo suij JIBJ IUSJJTIJ •SIIS UOIJBJS U J 9 J P 9 H M5 ! 9  s  B 9  -  r e  u^ld JSJSBUI puooss suj, iusuidopASp pire qojBSSSJ ui sqof 000'9 K  Supssjo puB sasqdsiuisq ujsipnos sip ui psqoiBunm sspijpBj paramo pire repos 'qojBSSSJ 01 SSSOOB a  §UIJSJJO„ (JXV) ^i^d A^oiouqosx paouBApy ire SB ipjiqsj B II SAI§ pire s§BJusq s siis sip psdssj a\ 4  SI ldsOUOO lUSUldopASpSJ 9UJ, 'BireJlStiy JO IJB UI pgOUBApB AireO]3oiOUq09J JSOUI 9ip 90UO SdoqS^JO^  qSppAg sqj sspnpui BSJB ISJIJ SUJ, 'SBSJB lusmdopAsp ssjip oiui pspuip si pupsjd sqj,  (pupzjj uSppAg-j puawy  'gz  "O/V  d3U 'SUIUUBJJ JO jdsrj M.SN)  9  P  0 U  vodsireji oijqrid reuoiSsj  JOfBUI B SB UOIPUIU S}1 JO JUSUISOUBUUS pUB SSOIAJSS pS}Bpj pUB SUOIlBJSdO ABMpBjpsrtUIlUOO JOJ A\OUB osre JJIAV lusmdopAsp sqx iusuidmbs puB sspijpBj 'sSmpnnq sSBjusq jo ssnsj pire UOIJBAJSSUOO l£  sip spnpui  lusmdopAsp sui 'urais^s iiBJ AiSN  U  I sdoqs^JOM \vei lireoijnjgis Xjreoijoisiq  ISOUI sui jo suo sy "(££-£ 3-mSij) sapqpBj SJBO ABp Smpnpui sapipoBj Aiiumuuioo puBrejirunopuB 'sipBd uBujsapad puB jsipAo '90Bds uado 'SJSUJBQ SUIOOUI MOJ JOJ §uisnoq ©iqBpjojjB 'sssn \ve&i puB repjauiuioo '(dXV)  96  ^Soiouqoax p33UBApy ire JOJ uoisiAOjd sapnpui 9jis sip JOJ §UIUUB|J  98  3.3.5  The Bays and Central Rail Yards Master Plans Stage III will be The Bays master plan. The site has a land area of some 124 hectares (306  acres) and reflects water-related industrial, port and railway activities (Figure 3-26). The redevelopment will open up a wide range of employment, recreational, maritime and commercial activities and encourage environmental rejuvenation of the foreshore and will improve water quality. The redevelopment includes establishment of public recreation areas and a continuous foreshore promenade (Figure 3-27). The last of the master planning developments will be the Central Railway master plan. The scheme will revive the street life in the precinct with pathways and public squares defining it as the southern gateway to the city. The redevelopment is intended to act as a catalyst to rejuvenate and extend a system of public parks and pathways linking Darling Harbour to the Central Precinct and the historic Railway Square.  99  Figure 3-26 View of The Bays Precinct  Source: NSW Dept. of Planning, "Bays Precinct - Questions & Answers," 1993  101 3.4  MINATO MIRAI MM21 - Y O K O H A M A , J A P A N  3.4.0  Urban and Regional Issues Yokohama is situated virtually in the centre of the Japanese archipelago, 25 kilometers from  Tokyo on the west side of Tokyo Bay (Figure 3-28). At the end of World War II, Yokohama had a population of 600,000. In less than 50 years it has grown to become Japan's second largest city with a population of 3.29 million (1994). By the year 2000 the estimated population will be 3.69 million. The National Capital Region comprising Tokyo, Yokohama and six neighbouring prefectures accounts for 3.6 percent of the land space in Japan, yet it is home to one-fourth of the nation's population with no relief in sight from the continuing increase.  33  Yokohama, as part of this region, is  heavily influenced by regional trends and indisputably tied to the regional economy and transportation systems. Because most rail and road connections lead to Tokyo, many of the citizens of Yokohama work in Tokyo, resulting in Yokohama virtually becoming a bedroom community (Kato, 233). The housing shortage is more critical in this region than in any other part of Japan and many of the houses that are available do not meet minimum standards. In order to afford a house that 34  meets the national standards a home owner must earn a minimum of Y10 million per annum. Large 35  companies offer housing for their married employees or offer low-interest loans. The availability of public housing run by prefectures and cities is severely limited and applicants are required to meet stringent qualifications (Maruyama, 248). Escalating land values put home ownership beyond the reach of most Japanese families. The sky rocketing real estate values forced governments to discontinue programs that encouraged and assisted private home ownership. The value of land is now beyond the reach of the government to purchase for public housing projects. Property ownership is concentrated in a few large developers. Although the government wants to take the initiative in urban renewal, the complex issue of property rights makes this extremely difficult (Maruyama, 249).  103 However, the district planning system allows for detailed development of new residential areas and protecting and upgrading the living environment in existing residential districts (Okata, 205). As a new type of urban centre, MM21 aims to create a balance of uses to attract people for both working and living. The project aims to construct unique housing and to integrate it within the overall project. The goal of the project is to develop a residential area of 3,000 household units for a population of 10,000 residents.  36  Kato states that the three greatest threats to public safety and quality of life in Yokohama are earthquakes, air and water pollution, and traffic (Kato, 231). Rush hour congestion is serious everywhere, and in some locations traffic is jammed throughout the day. Public transit is underutilized and existing rail service is inefficient and needs improvement. A municipal subway has only recently begun (Kato, 232). Suburban train and subway stations are important hubs for mass transport facilities and the areas around them play a strategic role in industry. Special emphasis is being placed on providing a comprehensive range of urban functions at key transit centres (Sugawara, 238-39).  37  Two transportation hubs have been developed at Yokohama Station and Sakuragicho Station, each conforming to the development guidelines with a plaza, commercial development, bus station and separate pedestrian areas. The development has also constructed its own rapid transit line — the Yokohama Minato Mirai 21 Railway Line which connects directly with the Tokyo Line at Yokohama station. The development has two major north-south boulevards and five east-west arterials (Yokohama MM21 Corp, Information Bulletin, 13-15). A transportation extension plan is also underway to link all the vital centres of the city into an integrated network. In 1965 the blueprint for the future development of Yokohama was laid out in the planning document, City Planning for Yokohama - The Future of a Citizen-designed City. The  104 document outlined six major projects: three dealt with major urban renewal projects including Minato Mirai 21 and three were transportation improvements (Sasaki and Okata, 202).  38  Minato Mirai 21 has been designed with an integrated transportation system fully linked with the regional network. However, it has ensured that all open spaces throughout the district can be linked by an automobile free, extensive pedestrian network. Three major pedestrian malls are at the heart of this system — the Queen, King and Grand Malls. To ensure the effective use of roads and streets, 7.3 kilometers of service tunnels are being built beneath the development. A communication system and anti-disaster facilities will also be built for management of the utility corridors (Kitamura & Tanaka, 197-198). Although the National Capital Region is serviced by the Tokyo International Airport for international flights and the Hanaeda International for mainly domestic flights there is no city airport in Yokohama. Transit times to these airports averages 45 minutes to Haneda and two hours to Tokyo International. Although there are some heliports within Yokohama they passenger service is extremely limited. To solve the problem of slow access to the international airports, MM21 has constructed a heliport. This is also intended to secure a safe, fast and convenient means of transportation for visitors to the Pacific Convention Plaza Yokohama. A major objective of Minato Mirai 21 is "to integrate, expand and strengthen the separated two cores of the city with a view to bolstering the city's economic independence and contributing to decentralization in the National Capital Region" (Kitamura, 191). The expectation is that when the development is completed it will alleviate the excessive concentration of business in central Tokyo and become a major business centre for the National Capital Region and its 35 million residents.  39  Not only does the redevelopment of central Yokohama play a significant role in the future of the National Capital Region, it also plays a leading role in realizing the Core City Concept conceived by the Japanese government. As a result, the development is considered a national project funded and  105 supported by the Japanese government. The development is designated under three national development plans: the New Media Plan, the Teletopia Plan, and the Intelligent City Plan. As a major objective of MM21 is to develop an information intensive city, the project conforms to all of the national plans.  40  As a result, MM21 developed the Minato Mirai Teleport Plan. The Teleport Plan calls for a large capacity fibre optic communication network using an earth station for satellite communications. The aim of the plan is to form a high level communications network with links around the world providing various forms of information using advanced telecommunication systems and technology for information transmission.  41  3.4.1  Planning for MM21 1965-1983 The ground work for the development of Minato Mirai 21 really began in 1965 with the  completion of City Planning for Yokohama - the Future of a Citizen-designed City.* This document 2  outlined six major projects for the future development of Yokohama. These included: 1) the renewal of the city's central section, 2) the reclamation of Yokohama's only remaining stretch of natural shoreline, 3) a planned residential new town, 4) construction of a subway, 5) construction of a highway system, and 6) the construction of a bridge across Tokyo Bay. The central focus of the urban renewal projects was "to improve the downtown area and connect the city centre with the suburbs while increasing Yokohama's autonomy" (Okata, 206). The integral core of the six projects was the renewal of the city's central section. (This later became known as Minato Mirai 21). The plan called for the redevelopment of a complex of shipyards, warehouses and port/railway facilities wedged between the two existing city centres and the area around the Yokohama Railway Station. The area was divided into three zones: the Yokohama Station Area, the Industrial Area, and the Central Waterfront Area. The piers and dockyards that lay between the new city centre and the old were slated to move elsewhere and additional land was reclaimed. The consolidation of surplus land paved  106 the way for a state-of-the-art urban centre for the 21st century. The City requested the shipyards move out of this area in 1967 but it was not until 1980 that they finally agreed to relocate to the outside of Tokyo Bay. The move was completed in 1983 in time for Yokohama to stage the Yokohama Exotic Showcase (YES 89).  43  In 1970, the Yokohama Urban Development Corporation  was formed to plan the overall development. The basic concept of Minato Mirai 21 was announced in 1979 with the preliminary plans for the 186 hectare (460 acre) development completed in 1981. It was then that the name Minato Mirai 21 was officially adopted and an Operations Headquarters was established for the overall improvement of the Yokohama city centre and planning of MM21 (Sasaki & Okata, 203). The official launch of the Yokohama Minato Mirai project took place in November 1983. That same year the reclamation of 76 hectares (188 acres) of Yokohama Bay began. In 1984 the Crown Corporation, Yokohama Urban Development Company, was reorganized to form the Yokohama Minato Mirai 21 Corporation. Minato Mirai 21 is a national project supported politically and financially by the government. The City of Yokohama is responsible for general coordination and land reclamation, the Japanese government for the construction of public facilities, and the Housing and Urban Development Corporation (HUDC) for land readjustment which includes roads, utility services, parks and housing. The Port and Harbour Bureau is responsible for development of port facilities and land 44  reclamation. The private sector is responsible for the construction of business and commercial facilities and the third sector (crown and public corporations) for the operation of public facilities (HUDC, MM21, 12). For Minato Mirai 21 to progress as a national project the public and private sectors must fully integrate their efforts and develop a coordinated land use strategy. The Yokohama Minato Mirai 21 Corporation was established as a "third sector body" (crown corporation) to coordinate these efforts.  107 The Corporation also has the responsiblity for overall land use planning activities (MM21 Information Bulletin, 1993, 9). The development process consists of soliciting development proposals based on the Corporation's guidelines. The developers that are chosen enter into a development agreement with the Corporation and a design is drafted for approval. Appendix 3, Tables 7 and 8 list the Third Sector Participants and the responsibilities of the public, private and crown agencies involved in the project. To ensure that all participants have the same understanding, in 1988 Yokohama Minato Mirai 21 Corporation developed The Basic Agreement on Town Development Under Minato Mirai 21. This agreement was signed by all the landowners in the area. The agreement establishes the basic guidelines for town development. The Town Development Council was established at the same time 45  the agreement was developed to manage and implement it. The council is comprised of all of the signatories of the agreement. The functions of the council are: 1) to implement the agreement, 2) to confirm and examine town development plans, 3) to coordinate with other agencies, 4) to confirm changes of landowners and other private parties, 5) to establish and implement urban design guidelines, 6) to allocate urban housing, and 7) to resolve urban problems (Yokohama MM21 Corp, Basic Agreement, 22). To control the development the agreement established six land use zones . In addition, each 4S  zone is subdivided into a series of numbered district "blocks." Development of these blocks is subject to approval of a development plan, land use restrictions and site scale limitations. There are also six blocks that are classified as "Development Promotion Districts" (Figure 329). Projects in these districts are given priority "in consideration of future progress and steps in city formation" (Yokohama MM21 Corp, Information Bulletin). To ensure that all of the participants have the same vision for the development and "in order to create an urban space which is harmonious and pleasant" (Yokohama MM21 Corp, Information Bulletin, 1992, 8), the agreement establishes five major development themes or objectives for the development.  47  108 Figure 3-29 MM21 Land Use Zones & Agreement Area  Business Zone Commercial Zone  Promenade Zone • Pore Zone  1  International Zone waterfront zone  %raement area -  J = reclaimed area Source: Yokohama MM21 Corp. Information Bulletin, July 1991  land usage image  Projected area  109 3.4.2  Minato Mirai 21 Land Use and Design Concept Yokohama is implementing a comprehensive master redevelopment plan known as the  "Yokohama 21st Century Plan." The plan is aimed at "creating an international city responsive to humanity" — Minato Mirai 21 is central to that plan (Figure 3-30). It is designed as "a city of the future for the 21st century" which envisions: a city on the go 24-hours a day, always attuned to the changing world, and adapting to the globalization of business . . . A base for an information transmission network in an advanced information society which will be directly connected with major cities around the world — a business centre with intelligent buildings standing side by side . . . (Yokohama MM21, Bulletin, 6 The development concept fosters three basic notions: an international cultural centre active around the clock, an information city of the 21st century, and a human-oriented environment of water, greenery and history. The concept is to develop urban functions such as advanced business, commercial and cultural functions, facilities for international exchange, and information transmission. The challenge facing Yokohama's is to create an attractive, distinctive city with a quality environment not in competition with Tokyo. To do this Yokohama established a City Beautification Committee and City Urban Design team. The design team deals with not only the physical designs but also cultural and historical issues. Yokohama has four principles guiding its urban design philosophy: 1) to ensure adequate space for pedestrians, 2) to create distinctive landscapes, 3) to ensure that people can enjoy the city safely at night, and, 4) to make the city accessible. The overriding design philosophy in MM21 is: to establish a new image of the Port City of Yokohama so that the sea or port atmosphere can be felt anywhere in town . . . to create a town whose various facets are combined in a unique style and simple harmony . . . to create a human environment surrounded by water, greenery and history, an environment in which man and nature are in harmony (Yokohama MM21 Corp, Basic Agreement, 10).  Ill To achieve this goal, 25 percent of the site is dedicated to parks and greenery. The development is designed to have attractive skylines, exhibit a unified design which reflects the maritime heritage and location, protect view corridors from main vista points towards the sea, and arrange buildings to ensure that the sea can be seen from inland parts of the area (Yokohama MM21 Corp, Basic Agreement, 12).  48  MM21 will be built on 110 hectares (272 acres)of existing waterfront and 76 hectares (187.8 acres) of reclaimed land for a total development area of 186 hectares (460 acres). The project is designed to provide employment for 190,000 and residence for 10,000 people (Figure 3-31). Estimated cost in 1983 for the project upon completion in 2000 is Y2 trillion. The development will be surrounded by a park area restricted to pedestrians. The setting will stress "the creation of harmony between man and nature." Wide expanses of shoreline, and a network of greenery in an open urban environment will combine the natural charm of water and greenery "in view of the necessity of improving contacts between the citizens and the port in the context of diversifying life and cultural needs" (Halsey, 193). During the first ten years of development (1983-1993) significant work was completed (Figure 3-32). The reclamation was accomplished and most of the site has been serviced. The once derelict area now contains numerous cultural, recreational and community facilities including the Yokohama Museum of Art, the Yokohama Maritime Museum, 46 hectares (113.6 acres) of open space and parks, a shoreline promenade, a multi-purpose community use building, the MM21 Yokohama Pavilion, the Great Ferris Wheel, and the Minato Mirai Pier and Marine Terminal. A joint public/private company called PACIFICO (Pacific Convention Plaza Yokohama) was established in June 1987 to operate and develop an international convention and exhibition centre as part of MM21. The concept was to establish a world class, technologically advanced complex of international exchange facilities and to provide widespread economic benefits to the local economy.  114 Designed as the largest international convention facility in the world, PacificoYokohama is the core facility of Minato Mirai 21.The integrated development includes a 600 room hotel, the 5,000 seat National Auditorium, Exhibition Hall, Conference Centre and Plaza (Figure's 3-33, 3-34). Not only are the facilities among the largest in the world, they are perhaps the most technically advanced (PACIFICO, l l ) .  49  Set on the waterfront, surrounded by the Seaside Park, it is accessible by air  (heliport), water (ferry), and land (expressway). The Cabinet decided in December 1987 to place the international conference hall, the core of the centre, under national management (Kitamura, 194). MM21 also includes the tallest building in Japan, the 70-storey "super high rise" Landmark Tower Yokohama; the largest department store in Japan, the Yokohama SOGO Department Store; and the Block 24 development (Figure 3-35). Block 24 will be developed as a model new community under one master development plan (Figure 3-36). The concept is for a major commercial/retail 50  development composed of three office towers, a Pan Pacific Hotel, a shopping area, a 2,000 seat concert hall and recreational and open space (Figure 3-37). The Park of Water and Light will be a major open space highlighted by water and greenery. Adjacent to the park will be the main shopping and entertainment area. Within this precinct will be a variety of specialty shops, international restaurants, nightclubs and open plazas. The site will be located directly above a new M M Central Rail Station on the new MM21 line with direct connections to Tokyo Rail Line. Commercial space is integrated around the perimeter of the waterfront park and the greenery of the Central Station Core which is a large atrium rising five stories (Figure 3-38, TRY 90, Block 24). Appendix 1 provides a detailed Land Use Summary of MM21 in comparison to all other case studies.  Source: MM21 Corporation Information Bulletin 1992  Source: Paciflco Yokohama "PACIFICO" Brochure 1991  117  Figure 3-35 Landmark Tower Yokohama  Dockyard garden Source: MM21 Corporation Information Bulletin 1992  Source: TRY 90 Associates, MM21, Block 24 Brochure, 1994  121 3.5  MISSION B A Y : SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, U.S.A.  3.5.0  U R B A N AND REGIONAL ISSUES San Francisco, with a population of over 700,000, is the commercial and cultural capital of  the nine county "Bay Area." The Bay Area region includes nine counties and has a regional population of nearly six million. This makes it the 4th largest metropolitan area in the United States and second only to New York in density of development.  51  Projections indicate that over the next 20  years the Bay Area will grow by one million residents and 1.1 million new jobs will be created. The Bay Area represents one quarter of California's income spending and job market (San Francisco Mayor's Office, San Francisco, 2). San Francisco Airport, located 20 minutes from downtown, is the ninth busiest in the world. Nearly 95 percent of San Francisco residents are within two blocks of a transit stop. San Francisco's Municipal Railway system is the most extensive and successful in the United States. The commuter rail system includes cable cars, bus, street-cars and subways. Inter-city commuters use an extensive integrated system of buses, trains, ferries and a four county rapid transit system known as the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). In 1985 Pacific Rim trade with California exceeded $81 billion — 35 percent of that volume flowed through the ports of San Francisco Bay. The Port of San Francisco can handle any type of ship or cargo and has the Bay's only cruise ship berths. Natural deep waters can accommodate 52  modern deep draft liners and the largest container ships scheduled for the future. It has California's only on-dock Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF) — a direct ship to train transfer facility. San Francisco has a wide variety of light industry which is expanding rapidly because of new space, generous incentives, favorable utility rates, job tax credits, and below-market financing. The city is aggressively pursuing such light industries as biomedical, research and development and multimedia.  53  122 The 313 acre Mission Bay project has a key location in the heart of San Francisco, adjacent to port facilities and with direct access to downtown by multiple forms of public and regional transportation systems (Figure 3-39). The Mission Bay development is the nation's largest single inner-city development (San Francisco Mayor's Office, San Francisco, 2-17). The development's secondary office space, commercial/industrial space, complemented by 8,750 housing units, will secure San Francisco's position as the dominant regional centre. Accordingly, the two main regional issues addressed by the Mission Bay development are employment and housing. As planned, Mission Bay is expected to produce about 23,000 permanent private sector jobs. Due to San Francisco's acute demand for housing, housing is the city's highest priority for Mission Bay. Accordingly Mission Bay has been designed as a "homes first" neighbourhood with almost one-third of the site set aside for housing. Mission Bay will provide about 8,500 housing units on-site for about 17,000 people (San Francisco Dept. of Planning, Proposal for Citizen Review, 3-2). To address the issue of affordability Mission Bay will include 3,550 affordable housing units. This represents 40 percent of the total housing units whereas the usual requirement by the city is 10-20 percent. Units will be either for sale or rent with prices well below general market rates (Bash, Mission Bay, 1992, 9).  54  Affordable housing will be built throughout the site and  integrated with the market-rate homes (San Francisco Dept. of Planning, Mission Bay Proposal, 5). To ensure affordability, all 2250 units constructed by the City will remain permanently affordable. Most of these homes will be built by non-profit housing agencies. The developer's housing would remain affordable for 30 years after which he could elect to provide a cash subsidy to the City to construct an equivalent number of units elsewhere (Adams, "Historic Decision" ).  55  The  Environment Impact Review (EIR) concludes that new Mission Bay workers will create a housing demand within San Francisco of 3,600 units, well under the proposed on-site 8,500 units (San Francisco Dept. of Planning, Mission Bay Proposal, 3).  56  124 From a regional perspective, the high densities and mixed land uses "provide growth and intensification within an existing urban area, easing pressures to develop hillsides, watersheds and agricultural lands and other "urban greenbelt' amenities" (San Francisco Dept. of Planning, Planning, 1). In recent years many "back office" or secondary office functions of larger businesses have relocated to lower rent suburban locations. The move to the suburbs of major corporate back office research and development functions and other firms not needing a downtown location has increased unemployment and hurt the local economy and reduced city tax revenues. The relocated jobs force Sah Franciscans holding these jobs to commute, relocate to the suburbs, or find other employment. Mission Bay is one of the few areas in the city with sufficient land for these functions. It will develop affordable office space in large floor plate buildings well-suited to retaining and increasing its back office functions. Mission Bay will attract new businesses and add to the economic diversity of San Francisco (San Francisco Dept. of Planning, Proposal for Citizen Review, 3-3). In 1985 there was employment for about 2,000 people in Mission Bay. By 2020 the development will accommodate about 24,000 private sector jobs the in service sector, research and development, office and light industry. The developer has proposed a comprehensive economic development affirmative action and job training program for Mission Bay. The goal is: 57  to achieve substantive economic participation in the project for disadvantaged minority-owned businesses, women-owned businesses and locally-owned businesses, and for minorities, women and economically disadvantaged San Francisco residents. . . . Prior to construction the developer will encourage its professional consultants to hire minority persons, women and economically disadvantaged San Francisco residents. . . . Initial goals for construction and consultant contracts are at least 20% minority and 6% women businesses with targets of 30% minority and 9% women businesses. Permanent employment goals for new hires are 75% city residents (Bash, Mission Bay, 1992, 17). Two major transportation issues face the Mission Bay development — continued port operations and the extension of local and regional transportation systems. Mission Bay is the present San Francisco terminus for the CalTrans Peninsula Commute Service. The City and CalTrans 58  125 policy is to extend the CalTrans service downtown. The developer has agreed to provide right-of-way for the extension of the regional CalTrain service through Mission Bay to downtown (Proposal for Citizen Review, 3-7).  59  The Transportation Demand Management Plan for Mission Bay calls for increasing public transit use and private ride sharing within Mission Bay. A key objective of the Mission Bay plan is to accommodate increased travel to, from, and within Mission Bay without adverse impact on the city's transportation system. Mission Bay will be well served by multiple modes of public transit including 60  the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and the San Francisco Municipal Railway (MUNI) Metro and MUNI bus routes. Separate right-of-ways have been established to extend the MUNI Metro (light rail service) and development of a intermodal transit centre where MUNI buses, MUNI Metro and CalTrain will stop. Commuters will be able to transfer from one mode to another. All transit stops will be within easy walking distance for most residents and workers within Mission Bay (San Francisco Dept of Planning, Proposal for Adoption, 3-110). The Port of San Francisco's maritime development strategy calls for expansion and modernization of its container market. To achieve these objectives the plan calls for replacing the existing piers within the Mission Bay site and developing an ultra-modern marine container terminal as well as expanding and developing container facilities south of Mission Bay. To amend these plans, the Port had to show the regional authority that the expansion of the existing terminal was more beneficial than developing a new one within Mission Bay.  61  Provisions have also been made through a land exchange to ensure the long-term viability of the Port of San Francisco. To effect the land transfer, the City and Port had to adopt a maritime 62  development strategy that would protect remaining maritime related lands from further encroachment of higher density urban uses. Furthermore, they had to demonstrate that the Port plans to obtain sufficient lands to expand its north terminal. The Port also had to show to the State Lands  126 Commission that "the land exchange provides the public with values equal to or greater in value than the land being given up".  63  While some lands were removed from the public trust, substantially more  land was added to the public trust in compensation, including freeing up a significant expanse of the Bay shoreline and the China Basin Channel for parks, plaza and promenades.  64  To ensure the site meets environmental standards, the developer is responsible for the cost of hazardous materials investigation and remediation for both city and developer properties. Developer 65  owned land scheduled for transfer to the city and the port authority will be transferred only after remediation is complete. 3.5.1  Planning for Mission Bay 1981-1990 In the late 1970s the Southern Pacific Railroad began the planning process to redevelop its  waterfront property (Figure 3-40). In 1981 the first of four plans for the site was developed by John Carl Warnecke. The plan was "overflowing with suburban cul de sacs and garden apartments, and enough office and hotel space to employ 30,000 people."  Undertaken without major involvement of  city officials and community groups, the proposal was quickly turned down. After consulting with city officials, the Southern Pacific Development company commissioned I. M . Pei and WRT Associates to come up with a new proposal, and in 1983 a second, more elaborate, plan was unveiled. This plan featured Venetian waterways, an island set in a canal and office towers as high as 42 stories. There were 7,000 housing units; research and development space as well as commercial, retail and hotel space; and 40 acres of major parks, waterways and plazas. Although city planning officials were initially enthusiastic, the plan was defeated by a combination of adverse community reaction and a downturn in the office market. The City also cited the competition the project was likely to provide for downtown, the emphasis on commercial uses at the expense of residential development, and infrastructure costs (Porter, 28).  128 After three more years of debate on how Mission Bay should be developed, what the form and content should be, and who should take the lead in the planning process the Santa Fe Railway took a new "radical approach by doing what no other developer in the nation had ever done. Instead of hiring planner after planner just to have his ideas shot down by city government the developer handed the planning process over to the city" (Shafroth, 12). With the City leading the planning process the developer was assured that the plan would be acceptable. The City also assured citizen activist groups that their concerns would be dealt with and that they would have a positive influence on the plan. "The developer understood that maintaining good relations with both the City and the community was important for project approval and that the planning department role had to be a strong one for this project to happen" (Bash, Mission Bay, 1992, 23). However, the citizen special interest groups were not as confident given the history of the site. "One thing was clear — citizens trusted no one, not the developers, not the City, not even each other" (Porter, 30). In 1984 the Santa Fe Railway Corporation agreed to an open planning process in which the Department of City Planning would take the lead. An agreement between the Corporation and the City on the nature of acceptable development at Mission Bay was reached that same year. The Mission Bay Study began using as reference a letter from the mayor dated October 16, 1984. In the letter the mayor issued a set of development guidelines which outlined the agreement between the developer and the City. Guidelines included: 1) restrictions on building heights, 2) a requirement that housing would take priority with 30% affordable, 3) restricted office space to secondary office uses; 4) set limits on commercial, retail, research and development and hotel space, and 5) open space was essential with 75 acres to be allocated for new parks and recreation areas (Bash, 1988, 66). To ensure that the City had the necessary resources, the developer provided an initial $2 million for the Department of City Planning to hire staff and consultants.  66  In 1985 the city hired  ED AW Inc., a land use planning and urban design firm to provide overall project coordination and  129 management. The Mission Bay Planning Team was then created consisting of ED AW as project manager and 11 sub-contracted consulting firms. It was EDAW's responsibility to coordinate the team. Consultant selection involved the developer and community representatives in an advisory role. Both interests had significant influence and either side could effectively veto a consultant's selection (Bash, Mission Bay, 1992, 24). EDAW also had the responsibility of developing and integrating the community participation process. The Department of City Planning set policy and acted as the central authority in conflict resolution (Bash, Collaboration,1988, 65). The funding gave the City the necessary resources to "seek out and listen to many citizen viewpoints and made the critical coordination among government agencies possible" (Bash, Mission Bay, 1992, 23). The ability to deal with the community in an interactive planning process enabled many plan enhancements and brought citizen endorsement of the overall process and community support for the Mission Bay Plan. The interactive planning process involved public dialogue, meetings, information exchange, newsletters, forums, issue-oriented small group meetings (focus groups), open design studio hours, and citizen review of draft reports. The City's project director, Alec Bash, estimated that over 100 civic organizations were involved at one time or another, including five formed specifically for Mission Bay. The mailing list contained the names of over 2,000 organizations, agencies and individuals (Porter, 29). This funding also allowed the City to be proactive rather than reactive, and gave it the resources to manage and set policy for the project, to facilitate public involvement and to coordinate environmental analysis. The process began with a two day informational workshop and design cahrette. After nearly 18 months of work, substantial differences still existed between the developer, the City and the community (Shafroth, 12). There was no agreement on what Mission Bay should be, no agreement on the land use program or validity of design concepts (Bash, 27).  130 In 1985 the City's first report, Background and Preliminary Findings, was published. It summarized the existing physical conditions, site constraints and opportunities, planning considerations and existing objectives and principles. It became the base document. The next report, Objectives & Policies (Dec. 1985, rev Sept. 1986), established agreed upon goals and planning guidelines for Mission Bay. The City worked with both developer and citizen groups to reach agreement on the objectives and policies; "virtually every word in the report was extensively negotiated" (Bash, Mission Bay, 1992, 26). During the three years between the 1983 Pei plan and the signing of the development agreement with Catellus, the City and community produced a detailed set of principals and objectives for the development which are summarized in Appendix 5, Table 12. The analysis of options and design alternatives was published in 1986 in Choices for Mission Bay (1986) which contained a range of land use programs, plan determinants and design concepts. The plan determinants and design concepts were incorporated into an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).  67  Prior to the publication of the EIR, and to address concerns raised by the almost 50 citizen  groups, 20 special studies were commissioned from various consultants covering a wide range of issues. Finally, in 1987, the City and its consultants produced the draft Mission Bay Plan: Proposal 68  for Citizen Review (Jan. 1987) which provided a proposed plan for the site with design guidelines to shape development. The development company then hired its own design consultant — Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (SOM)— to act as its advocate on final planning issues. SOM's responsibility was to address real estate marketability and phasing issues and to critique the plan. According to the developer, the City plan had become too prescriptive. Catellus was concerned that there was no focus, "that there was no clearly defined part of it that could be called Mission Bay Terrace" (Woodbridge, 122). In 69  turn, the City hired its own financial consultant "for advice on the project's economic feasibility and financial implications underlying the developers economic needs and "negotiating position'" (Bash  131 (1992), 30. The plan was revised to include significant design improvements by SOM (Woodbridge, 122). From the City's viewpoint there was a need for additional social and community benefits, including more affordable housing, increased office space and less industrial space. The SOM plan was completed in 1989. After revision the plan was redrafted as a Specific Plan which included an implementation chapter along with objectives, policies, programs and design guidelines. This became part of the City's master plan, and after public hearings and a final round of negotiating between the City, the developer and the citizens, the master plan was published in January of 1990. Finally, the Mission Bay Development Agreement was prepared, and after public hearings by the City Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, the agreement was approved. The agreement provides the implementing mechanism for the Mission Bay plan. Its 70  provisions tie down the details of the development including such issues as nature of the development process, development phasing, funding responsibility, land ownership, and the housing program.  71  Developer responsibility totals about $250 million for infrastructure, community facilities, exactions, fees and land transfers. Another $215 million in taxes and an annual land lease payment of $2 million to the Port Authority are required. The City has committed $5 million while federal and state grants total an additional $63 million. The Development Agreement was the framework for the City and Catellus to create a Community Facilities District, which allows the developer to pass on the infrastructure costs to future property purchasers as a special tax obligation. By project build-out the City expects to accumulate a fiscal surplus of $300 million, $150 million of which will be used to provide subsidized housing (Bash, Mission Bay, 1992, 7).  3.5.2  Mission Bay Land Use and Design Concept From the outset of the planning process the 315 acre Mission Bay development was conceived  as a high density mixed use development with commercial, retail and industrial space integrated with a 500 room hotel, 8,500 housing units and 28 hectares of park (Figure 3-41).  133 The plan creates a new residential neighbourhood and blends it into the existing city fabric by maintaining the existing street pattern and urban design characteristic of San Francisco (Figure 3-42). The design philosophy for Mission Bay creates a pedestrian oriented "urban Village" that carries on San Francisco's neighbourhood traditions. Three fundamental design principles have been pursued by the design team: 1) street and open-space frameworks should endure as area market conditions and land uses change, 2) a San Francisco-style neighbourhood should draw from the surrounding residential and commercial prototypes, and 3) streetscape and open space design should provide lively, safe places for personal and communal activities (Bash, Collaboration, 1988, 69). Design guidelines are published in detail in Mission Bay Plan: Proposal for Adoption (1990). They cover residential, recreational and open space; commercial and industrial; community facilities and streets. The design guidelines for Mission Bay are summarized in Appendix 5, Table 13. Open space is at the heart of the plan. Instead of developing the waterfront, a 2.5 mile park will run along the waterfront with a new park system to accent the 'grandeur' of the site. A network of parks weaves its way through the project linking all of the neighbourhoods (Figure 3-43). This layout means that no residence is more than a two minute walk from one of the parks, recreation fields, the channel or bay front parks. This essential characteristic is the key to the creation of a pedestrian oriented Village' (Bash, Mission Bay, 3-6). The project emphasizes quality of life through innovative design. Jim Augustino, Mission Bay project director for Catellus, stated: "It's going to be a wonderful place. . . . When I'm an old man that's where you'll find me" (Shafroth, 12). The SOM plan focuses on streets and open space: The SOM plan uses public open space as a legible, connective and place-making element and adds variety to the city's plan by breaking down the scale of the residential areas into smaller more diverse parcels and differentiating between retail streets, park edges, waterfront and Embarcadero edge (Taming the City, 76).  136 One of the unique features of Mission Bay's 8,750 housing units is that they will be designed by different teams of architects. The intent is to create a wide variety of housing styles and mix of uses based on traditional city design. The neighbourhoods' richness will be reflected in its buildings. "By using historic architectural standards such as bay windows, Mission Bay will echo the intricate streetscape and active street-life that have made San Francisco distinctive and lively" (San Francisco Dept. of Planning, Mission Bay—The Plan).Th& project's design also incorporates architectural features that work well in other San Francisco neighbourhoods such as narrow lanes and shopping on street level with apartments above. "Long before Mission Bay is completed it will look and feel like a San Francisco neighbourhood" (Mission Bay—The Plan). Shopping streets rather than shopping centres are planned to serve neighbourhood needs and foster an active street life. Boulevard-like streets and office buildings that reflect the low rise architecture of the financial district will be developed. Residential areas will blend a mix of housing types, affordable and market units, sales and rental units (Figure 3-44). A typical street will include town houses, flats, walk-ups and mid-rise apartments, some over parking or shops, all of which will match the adjacent neighbourhoods (Porter, 31). It will also incorporate existing waterfront activity and retain a maritime flavour. San Francisco's only house boat community will remain docked along Mission Creek, and ships will still load at docks adjacent to Mission Bay (Shafroth, 13). Commercial and light industrial activities are designated for a 25 acre office district. The site will accommodate four to six storey back office buildings and provide employment for up to 17,000 people. A second district will accommodate light industry, institutional uses, research and development activities and service and office uses. Up to 2,500 jobs will be created in this district. Both sites will be serviced by the joint CalTrain, MUNI Metro and bus station. A 500 room hotel is expected to serve the tourist and convention industry and will employ up to 500 workers.  i i  0  3  1 I a  s  138 Running through the centre of the development will be the main retail streets. A wide variety of retail opportunities will be created for up to 400 business and 2,000 employees. Most retail stores will be for the convenience of local residents. The rows of stores are intended to become the focal 72  point for neighbourhood shopping. Provision will also be made for large scale retail space and personal services. A large supermarket will be built in this area to serve the local residents along with numerous small corner grocery stores throughout the development The first system of parks and open space along San Francisco's central waterfront will be created in Mission Bay. The concept calls for the integration of natural features, and man-made elements such as fountains and public art to create a special character to the site. Almost 67 acres will be devoted to parks, recreation and open space. More than two miles of shoreline will be reclaimed and included within the parks. Today, the once 260 acre Mission Bay has shrunk to the 12 acre China Basin Channel. The San Francisco Bay shoreline has been built upon for various maritimerelated activities. What remains is a degraded 200 foot wide, 3,400 foot long waterway and a shoreline developed with massive piers, buildings, small boat repair facilities, local restaurants or lined with rip-rap. The intent is to repair the damage done in previous decades and render it a healthy, natural setting for wildlife and people. The banks will be redesigned with natural landscape, paved terraces and walkways. Although most of the development is not directly on the San Francisco Bay waterfront, Mission Bay parks and open space run parallel to it, set back from the water's edge. In addition, open space planned here will give San Franciscans shoreline access to China Basin Channel (San Francisco Dept. of City Planning, Proposal for Adoption, 3-135). In Mission Bay, 200 out of 315 acres are dedicated to public uses including over 25 acres devoted for community and cultural facilities. Facilities will be funded primarily by the developer and built by the City on land provided by the developer. Community facilities are summarized in Appendix 5, Table 14.  139 In summary, the four plans that were developed for Mission Bay reflected the development trends of their times: 1981, 1983, 1987, and 1989. The most striking difference occurs between the two plans at the start of the decade, which maximized development and the two at the end, which attempted to strike a balance between development and responsibility for the environment and social issues. From an urban design perspective, the change in plans reflects the international trend toward reasserting the public interest in open space and transportation linkage. Although all four plans have been water-oriented, the last two gave the waterfront increasing emphasis. Other significant urban design changes from the first two plans are the result of a shift of character of the project from a citywithin-a-city to a neighbourhood linked through circulation to the downtown. Finally, the four plans also vary greatly in the density of the proposed development which decreased markedly from 1981 to 1987 (Woodbridge, 121).  73  Appendix 5, Table 15 provides a summary and comparison of the four  plans for Mission Bay between 1981-1990. Appendix 1 provides a detailed Land Use Summary of the Mission Bay Plan in comparison to all other case studies.  3.6  PACIFIC PLACE, COAL HARBOUR, AND BAYSHORE GARDENS VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA  3.6.0  Urban and Regional Issues The City of Vancouver has a population of 472,000 and is the leading financial, business and  higher order service centre in the province of British Columbia (Figure 3-45). Vancouver is one of 18 municipalities forming the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD). The regions 1.6 million residents represent Canada's third largest metropolitan area. The GVRD is growing at an annual rate of 3percent and by 2010 the regional population is estimated to be 2.73 million. The region is the headquarters for 155 major corporations of which almost 100 are located in the City of Vancouver. This corporate headquarters sector forms the most important component of the City's economy. The city is also the provincial banking and financial centre.  140 Figure 3-45 View of Vancouver Peninsula  Source: GVRD Vancouver Perspectives  141 Concentrated in the city core is the large tourist and convention sector. This sector is expected to continue to experience rapid expansion and will likely be the most rapidly growing component of the city's economy through the 1990s. The downtown contains most of the GVRD's world class hotels, the trade and convention centre situated on the waterfront which includes a major cruise ship terminal, a covered 60,000 seat stadium, and a new 20,000 seat arena complex. Vancouver, Canada's largest port, is among the top 20 ports in the world and is an important cruise terminal. The city encompasses much of the 219 kilometers (136 miles) of the Port of Vancouver including bulk cargo exporters, expanding container traffic and a cruise ship industry. More than 3,000 foreign vessels representing 90 nations dock in the GVRD (GVRD, Key Facts, 9-15).  74  Current regional policy is contained in the 1990 document Creating Our Future: Steps to a More Liveable Region. The report identifies five critical priorities for regional development and actions to be taken within the region. These five priorities are: 1) maintaining a healthy environment, 2) conserving land resources, 3) serving a changing population, 4) maintaining the region's economic health, and 5) managing the region. Its thrust is to better manage the region's economic and natural resources, to help balance jobs and population throughout the region, and to provide greater accessibility throughout the region with improved transportation systems. For the central area of Vancouver including the False Creek Basin and Coal Harbour, the regional strategy seeks more housing growth, less job concentration, improved transportation systems and alternative forms of transportation. The Central Area Plan land use policies reinforce the regional policies by increasing the opportunity for housing in the central area, shaping downtown job growth to locations well served by transit, emphasizing the special role of downtown for the region's higher order functions, encouraging other office functions to locate in regional town centres, and reducing the overall central area office zoned capacity.  142  A further regional policy document is the Clouds of Change Report which deals with the issue of atmospheric change. Its conclusion is that atmospheric pollution within the region can be significantly reduced if there are alternative forms of transportation and increased opportunity to live and work in the same location, thereby reducing the need for transportation. Both the Central Area Plan and Creating Our Future support this document and contain land use policies that promote land uses easily linked by walking and public transit — by adding housing areas close to jobs, by locating offices near transit, and by facilitating retail districts convenient to residents and employees. Regional transportation policy in Creating Our Future promotes creating a regional bicycle and pedestrian network, facilitating a multi-modal travel network, improving public transit and roadway capacity, and encouraging people to live close to work. The land use policies are designed to have positive transportation benefits by encouraging more housing close to jobs, increasing the use of transit, and reducing overall central area office zoned capacity. 3.6.1  Planning for False Creek 1969-1988 Plans for the redevelopment of False Creek have existed since the early history of the creek.  Most of the plans prior to the 1960s dealt with industrial revitalization of the land base and development as a secondary harbour. It has only been since the late 1960s that the north shore of False Creek has been considered for large scale commercial and housing development. In 1968 Marathon Realty, the development arm of Canadian Pacific Railways (CPR), submitted its first plan for the redevelopment of the north shore of False Creek. Just as Catellus did with the development of Mission Bay, Marathon stipulated that the City must take the lead in developing the area. The proposal was for a $185 million apartment complex. That same year, with the planning process for False Creek, the City began to involve citizens for the first time. In 1969 Marathon revised its plans to include a $250 million housing and marina development for 20,000 people on 190 acres. By 1970 the City Planning Department had come to the conclusion that "False  143 Creek was under-utilized, badly deteriorated, polluted, an eyesore and a detriment to the metropolitan centre" (Fairview Slopes). In 1971 Marathon's $250 million 190 acre development proposal was revised again to include a residential complex for 14,000 people, 25 acres of parks, commercial space and a marina. The proposal also called for infilling of 29 acres of False Creek but City policy recommends no infilling. Work on Phase One was scheduled to begin in 1973. In 1972 the City Planning Department presented the first comprehensive development guidelines for False Creek. That same year Marathon announced that it was ready to begin work on its development once City Council established its policy for the development of False Creek. By 1974 most of the industries were gone from the shores of False Creek. Construction of new port facilities at Point Roberts made False Creek's role as a secondary harbour irrelevant. Consolidation of land ownership between the CPR, the City and the Province was complete (Rodger, Creating a Liveable Inner-City Community). That same year, after five years of planning, Marathon submitted a draft application for re-zoning the site. The goals for the revised development proposal were similar to those set down in 1969: no filling of the creek, no downtown freeway, public access all along the creek edge, protection of view corridors, variety and choice of housing, commercial, and public facilities allowing for a broad mix of people in the creek, reduce dependence on the automobile and make pedestrian life pleasant and popular. . . . tying False Creek tightly into the established city (Marathon, Statement of Intent, 2). The new proposal called for development of a mixed commercial/residential development of 94.5 acres lying between the Granville Street and Cambie Street Bridges. The development was to consist of four neighbourhoods: College Court, Roundhouse Square, Yale Lake and Richards with a total population of 7,780. The plan featured 28 acres of public open space with a large man-made lake, a public school and community centre, a marina, hotel, and a theatre-cabaret complex. By 1980 no work had started on the development and Marathon Realty sold the property to the provincial  144 government in a $60 million cash and land transfer. The Province wanted the area as the location for the 1986 world exposition, EXPO '86 (Burkinshaw, 59). To manage the site, the province created B.C. Place Ltd ,a Crown Corporation. As a Crown Corporation, B.C. Place was immune from the City's planning and development powers. However, B.C. Place agreed to cooperate with the City's planning process provided that the City met certain conditions. These included: 1) the City will react to B.C. Place development initiatives in a timely manner, 2) the development guidelines are not changed unilaterally once established, and 3) B.C. Place can appeal if any of its development applications are rejected by the Development Permit Board. These conditions were designed so that B.C. Place had a higher degree of certainty in the planning and development process than it could otherwise expect if it acceded "to the existing City powers, procedures and practices" (Cornejo, 10-11). As with Brisbane, the intent of B.C. Place was to develop a plan for the development of the site after the exposition. B.C. Place published an Official Development Framework (ODF) which described the initial concept for the 20 year development. The ODF was a planning document adopted by resolution by City Council from which would evolve the planning and zoning strategy. The ODF was not adopted by by-law because "that would give Council exclusive control over its application and amendment contrary to the intention of B.C. Place who sees this function as part and parcel of their mandate" (Cornejo, 14). The general development concept called for a high density commercial/residential development for 20,000 residents and 30,000 employees. The plan called for three neighbourhoods — the Western, Roundhouse and East Park. The plan proposed 11,750 mixed residential units of housing of which 2,500 would be non-market (Cornejo 21-41). There was also provision for commercial and retail space and a hotel development. A total of 45 acres of park space was recommended with a continuous waterfront pedestrian/cycle path and provision for outdoor recreational facilities. Other  145 community facilities included an elementary school, community centre, library, indoor/outdoor swimming pool, provision for daycare facilities, a marina facility for up to 1,150 berths and provision for live-aboards,floatinghomes and houseboats (Cornjeo 48-58). However, this plan was never implemented. Instead, after the completion of the World Exposition the Province created another Crown Corporation — British Columbia Enterprises Corporation (BCEC). The Corporation was created to manage all of the provincial land holdings similar in concept to the Property Services Group in New South Wales. The Corporation was formed by the merger of B.C. Place Ltd — the Crown Corporation managing the Expo site development — and B.C. Development Corporation — the existing provincial land holding corporation. The mandate of BCEC was to dispose of the EXPO lands and all other provincial land holdings. In 1987 the provincial government put the EXPO site up for sale as a single property, conditional on submission of development proposals. There were over 20 expressions of interest but only two submissions were formally made. On April 27 the site was sold to Concord Pacific Developments Ltd., a Hong Kong development company. Concord purchased the 82 hectare (202 acre) site for $320 million spread over 20 years. Appendix 7, Table 20 summarizes the four proposals between 1969 and 1989. 75  3.6.2  Planning for Coal Harbour 1970-1985 By the early 1970s the central waterfront was surrounded by residential and commercial  districts. The City, concerned about the absence of any overall development framework or long-range plan, carried out an extensive Waterfront Planning Study in conjunction with the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs. The City issued a draft policy plan aimed at increasing public access to, and introducing new uses within, what was termed the Central Waterfront District (CWD). Although the plan was adopted, it was never implemented and the land remained industrial for several more years (Vancouver, Central Waterfront Development Plan, 1979).  146 In 1978, Marathon's Project 2000 would have built offices and housing along the waterfront land. However, there were concerns over nearby rail transportation of dangerous goods and the low densities. Finally, growth in office space and other complications delayed the project and it was eventually shelved. However, when the South Burrard Inlet rail terminus moved in 1985 the way was cleared for the current Coal Harbour Development (Buttle, B-l). 3.6.3  Goals, Objectives and Policies The city had no firm policy document defining the City's and the community's objectives for  the Central Area of Vancouver which included the False Creek Basin and Coal Harbour sites. "How can our staff deal with development of the lands when the City has no policies, no ground rules, no position?" (Lee, "Stall alleged"). In 1991 the City published the goals and land use policies for the future development of the central area of Vancouver in the Central Area Plan. There are seven goals for the central area that have a direct impact on the Pacific Place, Coal Harbour and Bayshore Gardens developments. These goals are summarized in Appendix 6, Table 21. Within the goals established for the Central Area Plan, the City concurrently conducted over a combined total of 200 meetings and workshops with the general public, neighbours, advisory committees and other interested groups to determine the best use and form of development for the north shore of False Creek and the Coal Harbour sites. From these meetings, extensive research, and public input, the City developed the False Creek Policy Broadsheets (1989) and the Coal Harbour Policy Statement (Broadsheets 1990J. These policies are intended to be used by the City and developers to guide future development. The policy broadsheets are the City's guidelines to the 76  developer on how the City expects the development to proceed. Major City objectives and policies for the development of Coal Harbour, Bayshore Gardens and Pacific Place are summarized in Appendix 6, Table 22.  147 Urban design policy for the Pacific Place and Coal Harbour sites are contained within the framework of the policy statement and broadsheets. Tfiese policies provide the guidance for the design concepts for the various land uses within each of the developments. Tfiey reflect the design features that conform to the City planners' and the public's concept of what the character of the future neighbourhoods should look like. The Coal Harbour and Pacific Place ODP's also put forth major organizing design principles to further guide the development. These design principles deal with the overall patterns of development, the quality of the neighbourhoods and the special opportunities of the location. They are summarized in Appendix 6, Table 23. To make Coal Harbour a unique and special part of Vancouver, Marathon plans to adopt "The Arts" as the organizing theme and focus for the project. To achieve this goal Marathon has committed $4 million for public art and to support amenities such as art studios accessible to the public and performing arts programs (Marathon, Coal Harbour, Summer/Fall 1990). Pacific Place, Coal Harbour and the Bayshore Gardens have been designed as predominantly residential areas to achieve regional and city objectives and to recognize the special amenity of the waterfront as a place to live. Regional policy in Creating Our Future stresses the importance of more housing in Vancouver to help meet the goal of balancing population and jobs throughout the region. New housing areas approved or pending will create a total capacity of close to 12,000 housing units for 20,000-30,000 residents by 2005 due to new residential developments in the downtown peninsula (City of Vancouver Planning Dept., Coal Harbour Community Facilities, l ) .  77  Housing policies in the Central Area Plan are: 1) to create neighbourhoods by developing housing in highly liveable and primarily residential neighbourhoods around and closely linked to the CBD, 2) to facilitate wide housing choices at various scales and for different household types and income levels, and 3) to encourage family housing located in primarily residential areas serviced with community amenities. These policies are based on the realization that additional housing in the central  148 area can help reduce the need for public investment in commuting and is essential to achieving "an alive downtown." Housing for families with children and for a range of income levels is particularly important to creating a downtown "for all people." By being near but separate from major office districts, these new housing areas will foster a lively downtown while at the same time creating liveable residential environments. Significant opportunities to mix uses in these areas would still exist, but housing would predominate. In this way neighbourhood services can be focused more effectively and the creation of a variety of character areas of different densities will facilitate different lifestyles and household types. Specific housing policy for Pacific Place, Coal Harbour, and Bayshore Gardens are published in the False Creek and Coal Harbour Policy Broadsheets. These policies cover location, density, and household and income mix. Specific targets for each development were then developed in the Official Development Plans and refined for each neighbourhood at the time of comprehensive development rezoning (CD-I). Policies used to create liveable residential communities include: 1) the creation of areas of distinctive character, 2) appropriate integration of community and commercial services, 3) linkages, 4) open space character, 5) diversity in neighbourhood densities, household types and incomes, and 6) integration of housing types throughout the site with careful consideration to family and social housing, location and their access to community facilities. City policy requires 25 percent of the residential units be suitable for families with small children and 20 percent of the total number of dwelling units be set aside in land for core-needy households with 50 percent of the core-needy for households with young children.  78  The difficulty with the housing policy is that there is no guaranteed source of funding to actually construct the units. "While 20 percent of the site is reserved for social housing . . . the requirement is virtually meaningless because there is no sure source of financing" (Sarti, "Tower"). Funding is usually provided either by private non-profit organizations, federal and/or provincial  149 resources. Senior government funding must be applied for and funds allocated based mainly on need. The existing policy simply states that non-market housing funding should represent a net gain 79  in funding and unit allocation over that provided by current funding levels, and senior levels of government should be encouraged by the City to develop new or increased programs to achieve this. Current policy also requires that all non-profit housing be dispersed throughout the developments and integrated into each neighbourhood. However, many believe that integrated housing will never be developed as proposed and will cause significant social problems: Such a plan makes the non-market renters feel like they are lepers. This is unreasonable because most social housing will go to those on welfare. Their neighbours are going to be the extremely rich. This is going to be the rich and the poor cheek and jowl. . . .There is an extreme minority here and children are going to feel they're not wanted (Lee, A - l ) . A rental housing incentive was added to Coal Harbour and Bayshore Gardens but because of the advanced stage of the planning at Pacific Place, no rental incentive was feasible (Vancouver Planning Dept., Rental Housing Incentive). The incentive was implemented in order to respond to Vancouver's housing shortage and affordability. The decision to include rental housing marked the first time the City has required developers to provide rental housing if they want to build to maximum densities. "Vancouver Council turned the screws on . . . cutting the amount of development it will allow on the site but offering to soften the impact in return for construction of rental housing" (Lee, A-l). The attraction of rental housing is that along with non-market housing, family housing and market housing, a diverse mix of housing types will be provided which will provide greater opportunities for people of differing incomes to live in Coal Harbour. However, the rental units are all market rate and no provision for affordable rental units has been included. The policy broadsheets for the False Creek Basin and the Coal Harbour sites also state that community facilities and services should be provided for the education, social, health and cultural needs of the resident, employee and visitor populations. City policy also stipulates that adequate daycare/childcare facilities to meet the needs of the resident and worker communities is a priority.  150 Multi-purpose facilities preferably adjoining a park are to be encouraged. Access to the facilities and amenities to be developed in the new communities should be provided from adjacent communities and the development of community facilities and services should occur concurrently with the residential development which they are intended to serve. Financial responsibility for land acquisition and development costs are negotiated with the site owners. For the Bayshore and Escarpment sites a cashin-lieu option to the provision of recreational and community needs could be considered. Both the Coal Harbour sites and Pacific Place developments have been designed to foster these regional principles, policies and goals. "One of our goals in the redevelopment of Coal Harbour is to create a liveable community which is both environmentally sensitive and energy efficient" (Marathon, Views, Sept. 1991). The planning for Coal Harbour has followed the guidelines established in the City of Vancouver's Clouds of Change report. Marathon plans to be environmentally proactive and has developed several initiatives. These include: 1) promoting urban reforestation and reducing air pollution. An emphasis will be placed on landscaping with over half of the 46 acres of land being redeveloped as parks and opens space; 2) to ensure marine related uses are environmentally sound, marinas will have full servicing of live-aboards and floating homes; and 3) various alternatives to the automobile for commuting to downtown will be provided. These include pedestrian and cyclist pathways, pedestrian ferries and connections to both Skytrain (LRT) and B.C. Transit. Environmental and ecological features of Pacific Place include provisions for recycling garbage, buildings designed to take advantage of sunlight, and energy conservation. The shoreline is designed to limit any new fill and maximize fish habitat.  80  The plan provides for a number of  features including a variety of marine habitats, cobbled beaches, tidal pools and interpretive areas located along the walkway.  151 The policy broadsheets for Coal Harbour and Pacific Place also contain general policies on environmental protection. These policies include the requirement to develop a comprehensive environmental improvement plan, the restriction of any land development until the soils are deemed to be clean of contaminants, continual monitoring of the water quality of the False Creek Basin and Coal Harbour, and the requirement of appropriate recycling and energy conservation programs. In addition, the health and safety aspects of the soils must be resolved before any decision on the interim and permanent uses of the development sites can be made. Finally, full public disclosure of all reports, plans and studies on soil conditions and contaminants, including release to the public of the risk assessment and risk management decisions and the remedial plan, is required. In the case of Pacific Place, the provincial government agreed to the responsibility for the environmental cleanup (Branham, "Expo"). The estimated cost for the remediation program is $75$100 million (Hamilton, "Deal"). The goal of the remediation program is to restore Pacific Place to conditions which ensure that public health and the environment are adequately protected, and meet all standards established by the Province. Because the clean-up project is complex and highly technical 81  in nature, B.C. Environment assembled a specialist team known as the Soils Remediation Group. The function of this group is to investigate the soil quality on the site, make detailed plans and engineering designs for the remediation work, and monitor the clean-up.  82  A $5 million four year study of Pacific Place established that most of the site contained normal residential or commercial soil. Less than two percent of the soil to be excavated contains substances at the special (hazardous) waste level. The special waste soils must be treated before being disposed of and/or placed in specially designed storage facilities. Suitable long-term storage, 83  treatment and methods for the disposal of these soils have not been identified or developed yet. As a 84  result, temporary on-site storage facilities are being utilized and may be required for up to four years (B.C. Environment, Soils of Pacific Place, No. 12, Sept. 1992).  152 A guiding principle of the Clouds of Change report is to accommodate increased travel to, from and within Pacific Place and Coal Harbour without adverse impact on the city's transportation system that would be harmful to the city's liveability. The development of the Coal Harbour sites will create a community of up to 15,000 residents and workers. Therefore it is essential that adequate transportation services are provided in the area. The Policy Broadsheets for the development of streets, roads and transportation systems support the policies in both the city's Central Area Plan and the region's Clouds of Change report. In achieving the regional and city policies for transportation, Pacific Place will integrate existing transit service with existing routes throughout the city. Ferry boats will provide efficient movement across False Creek; a continuous integrated network of bicycle and pedestrian paths will connect Pacific Place with the central area of downtown and the downtown waterfront, an Above-Ground Light Rapid Transit (ALRT) station is located within the site. The development will integrate and connect with the existing street network. The street system links the streets and avenues and flows into the plazas and pocket parks ending at False Creek in a series of bays. Finally, essential to the development is the completion of a major axis/arterial road running east-west through the entire site — Pacific Boulevard. Even with plans to provide at grade crossings and double rows of trees, Jim Green, former president of the Downtown Eastside Residents Association (DERA), criticizes the traffic system. He states that, "They're designing the auto as king. Great sweeping roads like Pacific Boulevard where you can go around every curve at 35 kilometers an hour . . . the roads are more like highway bypasses than city streets where it's safe for pedestrians to walk" (Sarti, "Tower"). Yet Larry Beasley of the Vancouver Planning Department states, "The City learned from its experience as one of the developers on the south shore of False Creek that. . . cars and people are inseparable and residents want street access to their homes although they do not want to live on busy streets" (Branham, 4 Nov 89).  153 Coal Harbour's road system is a natural extension of the existing city grid that will effectively integrate the site into the rest of the city. A new dedicated service road will be built to provide access for service vehicles. Access to the central waterfront and parks for automobiles will be provided by 85  a new loop road system. The network is designed to move traffic into, out of, and through the neighbourhoods without increasing traffic in the surrounding neighbourhoods. Public transit will be routed through the development and a transit corridor has been reserved for future modes of public transit. There will be two separate bicycle paths. To further enhance bicycling as a transportation alternative, bicycle parking, showers and locker facilities will be made available in Burrard Landing. The cornerstone of the pedestrian system will be the waterfront walkway which will extend around the entire site. Pedestrian ferries will serve as additional transit modes around Burrard Inlet. In Vancouver mega-project application processing such as Pacific Place and Coal Harbour have incurred significant costs for several reasons: 1) the size of the development, 2) infrastructure and amenity requirements, 3) resolution of special problems such as contaminated soils, shoreline and waterbody planning, and 4) the drafting of complex legal agreements. In recognition of an 86  anticipated shortfall in fees for processing costs for False Creek, Coal Harbour and the Bayshore projects, additional lump-sum payments were negotiated and paid by the developers.  87  Estimates  indicated that by the end of the CD-I zoning process the cost will have exceeded revenues by approximately 12 times. As a result, in 1991 the City amended the Zoning and Development Fee ByLaw to assess the developer of a site 10 acres or larger on a 50 percent cost-recovery basis which would result in close to cost recovery for the largest cost component — the planning staff (Vancouver City Council, Mega-project Fees).  3.6.4  Planning for Pacific Place Concord's winning proposal for the development of the EXPO 86 land called for a $2 billion,  15 year development. Originally Concord's vision of Vancouver included high tech, high-rise,  154 futuristic office towers up to 45 stories, a system of offshore man-made islands, lagoons and canals, 10,000 dwelling units in three residential neighbourhoods for up to 20,000 residents with 20 percent of the housing available to the core-needy. A research centre would tie in with Vancouver's existing science centre and a high-tech international finance centre with state of the art satellite communications was envisioned. The international financial centre would take advantage of Vancouver's location on the Pacific Rim and operate as a 24-hour exchange. The site would also have an international village retail centre which would tie in with Vancouver's Chinatown and Gastown, an elementary school, commercial space for 15,000 workers, 20 hectares of park and a 5 kilometer parkway, a 400 room hotel and a 630 berth marina. The development soon became known as the "West Coast Venice" (Hamilton, Gl).  88  The City of Vancouver had no input into the selection of the winning proposal or sale of the EXPO lands. However, once the property had been sold to Concord Pacific the planning and development process came under the jurisdiction of the City of Vancouver. To plan the details of the development, Concord Pacific established a full design team. Concord invited the City to participate in a cooperative planning process and suggested an early start date on Pacific Place with an extremely tight development time table. To try to meet the dates as closely as possible, and concerned about the lack of public involvement, the City agreed with the cooperative planning process. To deal with the Pacific Place development, the City created a interdepartmental Major Projects Steering Committee and Major Projects Technical Committee. The cooperative planning process fosters cooperation and maximization of resources while maintaining the objectivity and independence of the City staff. To ensure the public's needs and concerns are heard and responded to, the public is involved as a full participant throughout each phase of the planning process. The public and the City guide the project and set objectives that the developer must adhere to. The cooperative planning process allows developers' resources to be  155 applied to planning in a way that supports City goals and allows planning to proceed more rapidly than it otherwise might. This planning arrangement recognizes that there is an imbalance between City and developer resources. The developer has the ability to amend its proposals faster than the City staff can analyze them. The key component to such a process is ensuring adequate staff are available and that the public is involved at all stages of the process. To ensure the city had sufficient staff and to keep the process moving, Concord Pacific agreed to partially fund the cost of additional staff (Vancouver City, Timetable and Staffing, 2-3). From reviews of two earlier development proposals by Marathon Developments for the EXPO lands, the City and community had general concepts and objectives for the development of the site. In order to further define specific objectives and concepts the City established a process which involved community input through a series of public forums and workshops. The end result was a 89  series of development policies called the False Creek Policy Broadsheets. The Broadsheets were approved by City Council in August 1988 prior to the land sale and developer selection. Next, the City Planning Department developed a set of principles for public consultation out of which developed a detailed program for community participation. Public involvement was targeted to meet three 'publics' — the neighbouring community, special interest groups, and the general public. The program involved a newsletter, public meetings, workshops, surveys, community meetings, submission of briefs, and formal public hearings (Vancouver Planning Dept., Public Involvement, 3).  90  Finally, in 1988 and early 1989, detailed planning of the development began in earnest. This included a re-examination of the lagoon scheme and the development of alternatives. In May 1989, after two months of workshops, the plan for the lagoon concept was rejected by City Council in favour of a more conservative 'bay' scheme which retained the existing shoreline. This radical change occurred because of concerns over: 1) infilling of False Creek, 2) maintenance of the lagoons,  156 3) environmental contamination from previous industrial operations, 4) loss of access and views of the mountains, 5) affordable housing, and 6) effects of increased traffic and retail operations on adjacent neighbourhoods. "Tfieir supposedly glamorous scheme came in and it didn't make the grade. . . . It would have created a sense of isolation and elitism. The lagoons were innovative, but what we are creating is not something for people in London and Paris to see on a postcard. It's a place where those people would want to live" (Branham, 4 Nov 89). On November 21, 1989 after four nights of public hearings, nearly three years in the planning, input from over 25,000 residents and over 170 other public hearings, the Official Development Plan (ODP) for Pacific Place was approved. Approval of the project will generate 91  42,000 person-years worth of employment and up to $2.5 million in taxes. The $2.5 billion investment by the developer will have an overall impact of $6 billion on the economy of British Columbia (Hamilton, A12). 3.6.5  Pacific Place Land Use and Design Concept The $2.5 billion Pacific Place will be primarily a residential development (Figure 3-46). Eight  thousand five hundred housing units from town homes to high-rise condominiums will be created in seven distinct neighbourhoods for 14,000 residents. One thousand seven hundred social housing units and housing for families will be integrated throughout the development. There will be two office 92  precincts. A 300 room hotel will be included with the international village. Major retail development 93  will be restricted to locations that extend the existing street patterns. Local retail sites will be located throughout the development (Figure 3-47). Half of the total area of 204 acres will be dedicated for public and community amenities including more than 50 acres of parks and waterfront walkways (Hamilton, "Expo plan"). The development includes the largest package of public benefits ever negotiated by the city. Concord will either pay for or provide all of the community facilities.  159 Appendix 6, Table 24 provides a comprehensive list of community facilities that Concord is responsible for. To help finance the project, Concord sold the Plaza of Nations site and one-half of the Apex site for a new arena. To further finance the development the owner indirectly sold a 35 percent interest in Concord Pacific. Finally, additional financing will be obtained through 94  condominium pre-sales. By June 22, 1989 the first phase, International Village, was approved (Figure 3-48). There will be a total of 800 condominium units designed to accommodate 2,400 residents. In addition there will be a 300 room hotel, commercial and retail space for up to 250 shops, an open-market, an international bazaar, and an entertainment complex. Community facilities include an elementary school, space for community activities, a daycare centre and the 10.5 acre Andy Livingstone park (Vancouver City Manager, Application for Rezoning-International Village, 3-8). The Yaletown Edge, in November 1990, was the second area approved for re-zoning. The objective for this site "is to create a new residential community that offers housing for a variety of ages and incomes" (Vancouver Planning Dept., False Creek Planning News, Vol. 2, No. 1, Jan. 1990). The neighbourhood consists three blocks of residential development adjacent to an historic warehouse area and adjoins the 10 acre waterfront David Lam Park. The development will contain 720 residential units. Pacific Boulevard, a major street adjacent to the neighbourhood, will be designed as a special beautification precinct with detailed streetscaping to create a comfortable and interesting walking environment. Local retail shopping and commercial services located along the boulevard will enhance the experience (Vancouver Planning Dept., False Creek Newsletter, Vol. 3, No. 1, June 1992; Vol. 1, No. 3, 1989).  Source: lnterville Development Ltd "Paris Place "  161 The first waterfront neighbourhood, the Roundhouse Neighbourhood, was approved for rezoning in February 1992. This neighbourhood gets its name from the historic Canadian Pacific Railway roundhouse. This heritage structure will retain its heritage steam engine and be transformed into a community centre. The emphasis on this residential neighbourhood is family and community. This concept will be reflected in the design of its 1,030 housing units and its community amenities. The neighbourhood features an elementary school, daycare centre, and after school care facility with several child play areas easily accessible from the family homes. At the centre of the development will be the 10 acre David Lam waterfront park (Figure 3-49). This community will integrate the residential areas with the site-wide park system and the waterfront pedestrian and cyclist pathways which run the entire length of the Pacific Place Community Development (Vancouver Planning Dept., False Creek Newsletter, Vol. 3, No. 1, June 1992). The fourth neighbourhood to be planned is the 17 acre Quayside Neighbourhood. This residential neighbourhood consists of 2,588 housing units for 4,300 residents mixed with local retail and commercial space. Public facilities include a 4.26 acre park, a floating public walkway, sites for 538 units of social housing and up to two daycare centres. The Quayside itself will be alive with pedestrian activity with shops and cafes, a 260-berth marina, and facilities to launch kayaks and canoes (Vancouver Planning Dept., False Creek Newsletter, Vol. 3, No. 1, Jan. 1992). The Beach Neighbourhood is designed to be an exclusive residential area with 2,169 residences, a marina, daycare facility and a neighbourhood commercial area. Finally, the Apex site will include a 20,000 seat arena and a possible 19 storey office tower. Appendix 1 contains a detailed Land Use Summary of Pacific Place compared to all other case studies.  163 3.6.6  Planning for Coal Harbour and The Bayshore Gardens At the same time that planning was going on for Pacific Place on False Creek, five miles  north on the shore of Burrard Inlet planning was well underway for the redevelopment of an additional 106 acres of waterfront lands. The total development area of 84 acres of land and 22 acres of water is referred to as the Coal Harbour Site (Figure 3-50). The site includes three sub-areas — Marathon Realty's rail yards, the Westin Hotel's Bayshore property and various private property along the 'Escarpment.'  95  The two major development projects are Marathon Realty's 82 acre Coal Harbour development and adjacent to it is the 22 acre Westin Hotel's Bayshore Gardens development. The Marathon site consists of 47 acres of under-utilized rail yards and a rail/truck ferry terminus, and 35 acres of water rights (Figure 3-51). The Bayshore site is 16 acres of under-utilized hotel land and 6.5 acres of water. The Escarpment properties comprise about two acres of potential development sites. Approximately half of the Escarpment is already approved for development. On May 30, 1988 Marathon Realty announced its billion dollar plan for developing its 82 acre waterfront railyards. The railway tracks, warehouse, and industrial docks currently form a barrier blocking public access to the waterfront and create excessive congestion in the downtown core. The rail lands are no longer required for operating purposes and "are valuable lands and should be developed to a higher use. . . .Technological change has meant large tracts of urban industrial land is now available for housing. Cities are no longer at the focus of shipping goods" (Hamilton, A-l).  166 The original concept in 1988 was for a mixed residential, office, and commercial project stepped back from two man-made bays. The proposal included 6.5 hectares of park and open space, five office towers, shopping areas, two hotels, a marina, public plazas, a second cruise ship terminal, public walkways, a festival market that could include a new location for the Vancouver Maritime Museum, up to 2,600 housing units for seniors or couples without children, infilling four hectares of the waterfront, and restricting the area to mainly pedestrian traffic (Hamilton, "Revamping," D-l). The development consisted of two residential neighbourhoods and a commercial precinct. The first neighbourhood to be developed, Cardero Marina, would be mainly residential. It would contain 1,400 housing units, many exclusive, with some seniors housing, a 400 room hotel, marine oriented retail and restaurants, and a 300 slip marina. The second neighbourhood, known as Burrard Park, was planned as a mixed-use waterfront complex including commercial space, a low-rise market place, and a possible new location for the maritime museum. The third neighbourhood, Bute Green, located at the centre of the development was to connect Cardero Marina with Burrard Park. It was to contain mainly residential and commercial development (Hamilton, "Revamping", D-l). The City involved the community in establishing a set of objectives for the site through a series of public meetings and workshops. The City evaluated the development proposal against these objectives and found that the plan had not provided for family or social housing; had not set aside enough parkland; densities were too high; the street system would over burden the existing streets; building heights were too high, blocked views and created overshadowing; there were too few public amenities; and the rationale for infilling of the harbour was in question. "The Coal harbour developer will have to do some bending before the project gets the go-ahead" (Tevlin, "Marathon," 1). The public made it clear it is a working waterfront, a richly diverse community that should be saved. It could even form the theme for the development that everyone is searching for. . . . The water uses should determine the land use and set the spirit of the place. . . . Those who  167 are living there now should be allowed to stay. . . .This is an area where families can live with small children and we should plan it that way (Volkart, "Public's response"). The City made it quite clear that certain objectives for community and social amenities were not negotiable. These include 25 percent family housing, 20 percent social housing, a waterfront walkway, a major public amenity, a seven acre public park, an elementary school and a day-care centre. There is something very important about the city reclaiming the waterfront and realizing its destiny as a city on the water. But that doesn't mean we should sacrifice one concession for the quality of life. The destiny of the city rests on the quality of life it provides (Branham, "Coal Harbour"). Between mid-1988 and February 1990, Marathon and the City Planning Department held more than 50 public information meetings involving over 1,000 citizens to discuss the goals and objectives to be included in the policy statements for the development. On February 6, 1990 the Coal Harbour Policy Statement was approved (Marathon, "Coal Harbour"). This approval allowed the Coal Harbour and Bayshore projects to move on to the preparation of the Official Development Plan which was approved on July 24, 1990. 3.6.7  Coal Harbour and Bayshore Gardens Land Use and Design Concept Primarily a residential neighbourhood, the $1 billion Coal Harbour development consists of  three distinct neighbourhoods: the Marina Neighbourhood, Burrard Landing and Harbour Green (Figure 3-52). The development will be home to 3,000 residents and provide a mixture of housing styles and types including market, affordable rental, social housing, and housing suitable for families with small children (Usinger, 3).  96  Commercial facilities are consolidated into three office towers  with retail facilities mixed throughout the development. Marathon is responsible for providing or paying for a comprehensive package of community benefits valued at more than $90 million. A 1,500 seat waterfront Performing Arts Centre is the focal point of the community facilities.  169 Appendix 6, Table 25 provides a detailed summary of the community facilities which Marathon will provide. Coal Harbour maximizes the waterfront setting by maintaining a working waterfront and including numerous waterfront activities its length. The three neighbourhoods are linked by walkways and the eight acre Harbour Green Park which is the link between Burrard Landing and the Marina neighbourhood. Economic benefits include an estimated 9,100 direct employment jobs once the development is completed and 6,000 person years of work during the construction phase (Vancouver Planning Dept., Community Facilities Study). Phase 1, the Marina Neighbourhood, is designed as a traditional residential neighbourhood with 1,020 residential units and local street oriented retail and office space (Figure 3-53). At the heart of the Marina neighbourhood is the waterfront with its 350 berth marina (Marathon, "The Marina Neighbourhood"). The marina has been designed to bring life to the neighbourhood and pay tribute to its maritime heritage (Figure 3-53). Residential units will be a mixture of garden court condominiums, street oriented town houses reminiscent of New York 'brownstones', and terraced mid-rise and high-rise towers. Housing types include a mixture of adult condominiums, seniors, smaller rental apartments and social housing (Figure 3-54). The neighbourhood character is made unique by the addition of a working marina, convenience shops and restaurants, and the retention of historic rail lines called "memory rails' (Marathon, Views, Sept./May 1991).  97  Community facilities have been designed around a traditional "town square' and include a community centre and gymnasium, a daycare, K-7 elementary school, outdoor play areas, and a community park to serve the school and community centre (Figure 3-55).  172  Figure 3-55 Caol Harbour Parks & Community Facilities  Parks for Leisure-Parks for Play  A Range of Community Facilities Source: Marathon Realty, "Coal Harbour Public Information Bulletin," Fall/Winter 1991.  173 After over 75 meetings and workshops the 42 acre Phase Two commercial precinct, Burrard Landing, was approved at a public hearing in May 1993 (Figures 3-56, 3-57). Burrard Landing contains three commercial office towers with provision for at-street retail space, two day care facilities and a 500 room hotel (Figure 3-58). In addition, two public plazas and a 1,500 seat Performing Arts Centre will be included to serve as the cultural focal point on the waterfront (Figure 3-59). Burrard Landing will also be a working waterfront with commercial based water activities, a terminal for Vancouver's float planes and a small boat harbour ( Marathon, Burrard Landing). The final phase will be the development of the Harbour Green Neighbourhood. This will be the largest of the residential neighbourhoods located in the centre of Coal Harbour. There will be up to 1,036 residential units with an additional 210 rental units. The major focus of this neighbourhood is the eight acre waterfront Harbour Green Park which will link the commercial precinct and the Marina neighbourhood. The development of Bayshore Gardens was approved on November 21, 1991. Although the development is not part of the ODP for Coal Harbour, the objectives and criteria of the Coal Harbour Policy Statement apply to it. The 22.7 acre (land and water) Bayshore Gardens is primarily a residential neighbourhood with a total of 980 units for a population of 1,400 (Figure 3-60). Housing will include a mix of rental, family, and core-needy housing. There will be ten residential towers arranged about a central neighbourhood park and separated by landscaped open space with water gardens and children's play areas (Figure 3-61). A 250 room addition to the Westin Bayshore Hotel is also planned. A seawall promenade will extend around the entire site with a restaurant/cafe designed as the focal point on the waterfront seawall (Figure 3-62). Water amenities include public piers, marinas, a float plane base, and floating walkways (Vancouver, Coal Harbour, Vol. 2, No. 1& 2; City of Vancouver, Bayshore Re-zoning Application). A detailed Land Use Summary of Coal Harbour and Bayshore Gardens comparing them to all other case studies is contained in Appendix 1.  176 Figure 3-58 Burrard Landing Marina & Performing Arts Centre  Maintaining a Sense of Marine Tradition  A Front Row Seat Source: Marathon Realty," Coal Harbour: Public Information Bulletin," Spring 1993  Figure 3-59 Burrard Landing Commercial Precinct & Hotel  A New Hotel Source: Marathon Realty, "Coal Harbour: Public Information Bulletin," Spring 1993  CHAPTER FOUR EVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS 4.0  Introduction The urban waterfront is gradually changing its character as new land uses penetrate the area. The pitch-dark corners of the waterfront are undergoing a transformation into illuminated tourist and recreational facilities. The waterfront areas are becoming more accessible and attractive to the public. Replacing abandoned storage facilities and rundown quays are maritime museums, aquariums, restaurants, waterfront parks and marinas (Hayuth, 63). Throughout the Pacific Rim there is growing public recognition of the urban waterfront as a  major asset for the community. This has proven to be a strong catalyst for revitalizing and redeveloping neglected waterfronts and associated under-utilized industrial and rail lands. Projects are now underway throughout the Pacific Rim that will integrate these areas back into the city fabric. This is no easy task as Samperai states: "In comparison with other forms of urban development — by almost any measure you wish to choose — the waterfront is the most difficult and complex area to develop. It is the tough stuff' (Samperai, 47). The redevelopment of these strategic waterfront properties in the heart of the city pose significant dilemmas, challenges and opportunities for politicians, citizens and developers. "For city planners development along the urban waterfront provides a unique opportunity to gain large tracts of vacant, centrally located land" (Hayuth, 63). Planners and politicians must carefully scrutinize development proposals for the waterfront to ensure they reflect the interests of the entire community. Each interest group has its own agenda and vision for the future of the waterfront. The key to successful development is negotiation and compromise. This study has illustrated that utilization of these sites for single purpose uses, such as "people places" — festival markets, fishing piers, marinas and waterfront parks, is not feasible. These sites are too valuable and must be integrated into the city's diversified economy. The waterfront can accommodate an assortment of activities but not all are compatible and conflicts often arise. At the centre of the conflicts are the issues of higher-intensity redevelopment and social and community  181  182 needs. Establishing a successful balance of uses will allow the realization of all development objectives to some degree. This compromise will avoid the premature end to a waterfront project because of strong public opposition. Negotiating the issues and coming to a consensus allows for greater diversity. No better examples of consensus building and compromise exist than Vancouver's cooperative planning process, San Francisco's interactive planning process, and Newcastle's collaborative planning process. This study has further established that comprehensive planning of the entire urban waterfront is necessary to allow redevelopment before the economic collapse and abandonment of the waterfront. An effective master plan will allow the development of surplus property as it becomes available. An excellent example is the City West Urban Strategy in Sydney. The strategy identifies surplus rail and port lands at Central Station, Eveleigh Goods Yards, and in the Bays Precinct as potential development sites over the next 10 to 20 years. Anticipating the reuse of these lands, the New South Wales Department of Planning is already developing reuse strategies. This study has shown that early planning will save time and money, allow for the orderly transition from waterfront and industrial uses to new productive uses, ensure carrying out of urban consolidation policies to reduce urban sprawl and infrastructure costs, and allow early integration of residential areas to maintain the vitality and economic viability of the area. However, several problems limit this approach. In most waterfront cities the existing functions do not vacate the entire waterfront all at once, and a gradual relocation of uses opens the way for sporadic development. For example, the City West Urban Strategy calls for redeveloping the area over the next 20 to 30 years. This is necessary to cater to strategic plans to relocate rail and port facilities. Multiple ownership of waterfront land presents another constraint. A further limitation is finding one group with the necessary expertise, financing, and resources to undertake the complex challenge of waterfront development (Heath, 63). The major problems are the immensity of the undertaking and sourcing the necessary financing. There are simply too few  183 developers large enough or experienced enough to take on these projects. In the case of developing the 204 acre EXPO lands in Vancouver, the British Columbia government decided to sell the property as a single undeveloped parcel rather than servicing the land and then subdividing it into marketable packages. The problem the government faced was: "there are only 24 development firms in the world who have the finances and expertise to develop the former EXPO grounds" (Cox, "Expo site"). In all of the Australian cases, the government as the major land owner has retained development control. The government, through Crown corporations, is responsible for preparing the master plans, establishing essential infrastructure, and subdividing the land into easily marketable parcels. The Crown corporations are responsible for promoting "the orderly investment and development of surplus government lands." Articles by Slack (1975), Harney (1979), The Department of the Interior (1980), Wrenn (1983), Turnbridge (1986), Samperai (1986), Hotson (1989), and Torre (1989) analyze the various ingredients that are common to waterfronts and waterfront development. Each refers to these ingredients somewhat differently: issues, themes and trends; hurdles and obstacles; factors and elements; needs and opportunities; and areas of conflict. The concepts they describe form the foundation for understanding the complex and myriad of waterfront development issues that developers and planners must address before preparing a waterfront revitalization plan. This chapter first reviews that literature. Second, it applies the principles and theories to evaluate how each of the case studies responded to the issues and conflicts they faced. Third, it provides a synopsis of the lessons learned from the study and finally, it provides recommendations on areas where further research would be valuable.  4.1  Image and Urban Design Harney refers to the redevelopment of the abandoned waterfront as the "Cinderella  Syndrome." The analogy is symbolic of restoring these run down areas to attractive, lively  184 economically viable neighbourhoods, returning life and beauty to the historic focus of the city. The difficulty lies in erasing the negative image of the waterfront as a low status area, home to the down and out, the seamy side of the city, and an area that is rampant with crime and decay. To fight this stigma, cities such as Vancouver, Brisbane and Yokohama staged hallmark events such as the World Expositions held in Vancouver 1986 and in Brisbane in 1988. In 1991 Vancouver held the Vancouver International Triathlon to impress upon the community how clean the water of False Creek was. In 1989 Yokohama put on the Yokohama Exotic Showcase (YES) to "kickstart" the redevelopment process. Sydney plans to use part of the City West area in Pyrmont-Ultimo for the International Broadcasting Centre and the Media Village for the 2000 Summer Olympics. In addition, Darling Harbour, next to Pyrmont Bay, will host four Olympic events, focusing the world's attention on the City West development. Cities must not only prove their willingness to invest in developing their waterfronts but they must create an image that will attract the community and investors back to the waterfront. Therefore, waterfront design objectives become as important as land use. The most prevalent design objective is to bring back a sense of history by maintaining historical and maritime linkages. This objective includes maintaining existing marine activities, incorporating historical artifacts, and developing maritime museums. To bring the community back to the waterfronts the developments emphasize the public domain, featuring large tracts of open space, landscaped parks, waterside promenades, cycle and pedestrian paths and many opportunities for waterside activities. The networks of parks and paths are a unifying element connecting neighbourhoods with the city and the waterfront. These linkages ensure public access to the waterfront and provide continuous leisure and recreational activities. The South Bank development in Brisbane uses "traditional Queensland architecture to express the relaxed subtropical Southeast Queensland lifestyle." The development uses landscaping as a unifying theme and to establish a special identity within the site. Due to the history of the site and  185 Queensland's outdoor lifestyle, most of the activities reflect its maritime heritage and focus on the elements of water and recreation. The 16 hectare (40 acre) South Bank Parklands fully achieves the goal of re-establishing the South Bank of Brisbane as a people place. The Parklands draws the residents back to the water's edge and re-establishes the South Bank as an active, thriving waterfront. In Newcastle the fundamental design objective for Honeysuckle is the preservation of its valuable heritage by retaining and enhancing existing historic areas without inhibiting the future growth of the CBD. The intent is to highlight Newcastle's maritime and industrial heritage by maintaining the relationship to its unique waterfront setting and to focus the development outwards to the water's edge. The upgrading of the existing fishing fleets moorings, development of a recreational marina, reclaiming a four hectare (10 acre) marshland wildlife habitat, constructing a seawall and waterfront promenade, and restoring the central railyard buildings for retail and commercial uses are all aimed at bringing the community back to the waterfront. Sydney, like Newcastle, emphasizes the retention of the historical character of the City West planning area. The heritage items and conservation areas are the overriding criteria for guiding urban form and scale. Public spaces using extensive landscaping as a unifying theme and a foreshore promenade will link the old and the new. The extension of the public domain to the water's edge and the "embellishment of it with waterfront parks and promenades will draw the community back to the water's edge." In San Francisco and Vancouver the waterfront sites were always large industrial sites, docks and railyards that had little, if any, community life. The buildings have long since disappeared leaving behind a deserted landscape. In San Francisco the design philosophy is to create an "Urban Village." The new 'village' will carry on San Francisco's neighbourhood traditions while incorporating existing waterfront activity and retaining a maritime flavour. As with all of the waterfronts, Mission Bay includes an abundance of open space and a network of parks, cycle and pedestrian paths linking  186 all of the neighbourhoods. The development will draw the community to the water's edge. Similarly, Vancouver's intent is to create lively residential neighbourhoods on the waterfront, reclaiming abandoned waterfronts for the community. A primary design objective is to enhance the site's significance as a maritime and rail centre. Pacific Place and Coal Harbour achieve this by maintaining existing houseboats, live-a-boards, boatyards and marinas; promoting commercial enterprises that reflect a marine character; and enhancing existing marine and rail facilities. This includes retaining an existing roundhouse for a community centre and integrating existing rail and industrial artifacts into the parks and public spaces. Perhaps Yokohama's overriding design philosophy sums up the "Cinderella Syndrome" best: To establish a new image of the port so that the sea or port atmosphere can be felt anywhere in the town . . . to create a town whose various facets are combined in a unique style and simple harmony . . . to create a human environment surrounded by water, greenery and history, an environment in which man and nature are in harmony (MM21 Corp., Basic Agreement, 10). Creating the proper image is crucial if the development is to succeed both economically and in bringing the community back to the water's edge. Image is created through innovative urban designs that link the maritime heritage with the present urban fabric and that, wherever possible, integrate reuse of heritage buildings and artifacts into the development. The design must also reflect the site characteristics and not attempt to create an image unresponsive to the community: "New buildings should not dominate the landscape but blend carefully with it. . . . Buildings can be separated into elements that humanize the scale, give a gentler skyline and preserve views and view corridors" (Charles HRH, 83). Each of the case studies has carefully used design guidelines and development controls to ensure the image reflects the traditional architecture and protects views. Each of the case studies has emphasized the need to create a community identity and integrate the development with its surroundings. Finally, essential to bringing the community back to the water's edge, is the provision  187 of easy and abundant public access, and large expanses of open space that provide opportunities for recreational activities. 4.2  Heritage and Cultural Potential Many waterfronts contain historic structures or uses that can enhance the attractiveness for  investors and help develop tourism. The maritime heritage of old seaports and ships has sparked renewed public interest. Participants in waterfront revitalization have learned that conservation and adaptive reuse of heritage structures can easily blend into larger redevelopment environments (Turnbridge, 83). Waterfronts often possess unique opportunities to reuse older structures or maritime and industrial artifacts that reflect the area's past and character. There have been numerous articles written on successful waterfront restoration projects (Wrenn 1983; Dept. of Commerce 1980; Torre 1989; Breen 1985, 1986, 1987; and Turnbridge 1986). There is hardly a city across North America, large or small, that has not capitalized on the history of its waterfront as the impetus for major revitalization projects. New York's historic South Street Seaport District; San Francisco's Fisherman's Wharf, Pier 39 and Ghirardelli Square; Boston's Quincy Market, Fanueil Hall and Commonwealth Pier; Seattle's Pike Street Market; John's Landing in Portland; The Embarcadero and Seaport Village in San Diego; Laclede's Landing in St. Louis; Market Square and Loyalist Plaza in Saint John, New Brunswick; The Old Port in Montreal; and Halifax's Historic Properties are examples of this trend. The conservation of maritime heritage districts cannot be taken for granted. Adaptive reuse of historic structures on the waterfront must contend not only with competitive redevelopment but also with intensification pressures. Without exception, all of the projects reviewed in this study address the heritage and cultural issues. The M M 21 project in Yokohama stands out for the integration of not only its maritime heritage but also its extensive cultural amenities. Yokohama has preserved links with its maritime past by establishing three maritime parks, restoring the Nippon Maru sailing vessel, and restoring the 1896  188 Yokohama Dock No. 2 as a dockyard garden and event plaza. Seaside Park has been designed to give citizens a feel of being close to the sea. The historic red brick warehouses will be preserved as a dual cultural and commercial facility. Cultural facilities include the Yokohama Museum of Art, the Art Plaza, the Yokohama Maritime Museum, and the National Auditorium (Kitamura & Tanaka, 197). The City West area in Sydney has a rich maritime heritage as a result a key objective and planning principle for City West is to encourage adaptive reuse of heritage structures and conservation of heritage items. In Ultimo-Pyrmont Precinct there are 89 individual buildings of significant heritage value and three conservation areas. These areas or items will be highlighted as the focal point of public spaces or residential communities. They are the overriding criteria for guiding urban form, scale, siting and materials. Numerous wharfs and industrial and institutional buildings constructed in the early 1900s will be restored or adapted for reuse. Items include the massive Jones Bay Wharf which will be developed as a core feature of Pyrmont Point. At water level the wharf will be extended by decking to allow easier recreational water usage. The storage sheds will be transformed into retail shops providing an active and vibrant waterfront. Among the numerous buildings being restored are a group of historic terrace homes that will be adapted for community recreation uses. Various historic hotels will be restored and reused as neighbourhood taverns. The 109 year old Pyrmont School will be restored to provide community facilities. Pedestrian walkways and cycle paths will provide access to significant 98  heritage items along the waterfront. In the Eveleigh precinct, the old locomotive workshops will become a museum displaying old and new technology. The workshops were the largest and most advanced in Australia and are of world heritage significance. The engine shop will be turned into the National Innovation Centre as part of the Advanced Technology Park (ATP) proposed for the Eveleigh precinct. The ATP will respect Eveleigh's heritage and once again become the site where the latest technology is developed.  189 Newcastle is one of the few maritime centres in the world where an intact 19th century building form remains. This has been recognized in the urban design guidelines as important for preservation and recognition in new structures. The fundamental design concept for Honeysuckle is to preserve the valuable heritage asset without inhibiting future growth of the city centre. This concept is based on the belief that retailing and conservation are highly compatible, and by preserving and building upon the existing historic areas the whole city can benefit. The focus of the heritage redevelopment is the Civic Heritage Precinct. The six heritage buildings at the Civic Rail Yards provide the core for a new precinct of retailing, entertainment, community and cultural activities." A second heritage project is the restoration of the historic 1906 Wickham Public School, converting it into 22 residential units. In Brisbane, as part of the South Bank development the initial plans for the South Bank Parklands called for saving only the facades of its historic buildings. These plans were subsequently altered by civic pressure and the entire buildings were restored. Because of the controversy, all of the adjacent development must now conform to an historic maritime theme. The Plough Inn and Ship Inn have been restored and serve as focal points for the residents of Brisbane as well as millions of tourists. The restored Allgas Building serves as the South Bank Parklands administration building while the restored late Victorian Collins Place is the community police station. Finally Stanley Street Plaza was created to recognize the importance of Stanley Street as one of Brisbane's major thoroughfares and retail centres. The plaza maintained the original alignment "as a visible element in the landscape to act as a reference datum for the historic imagination." Through the Parkland's imaginative restoration and integration of historic structures and streets, the roots of Brisbane remain a visible part of the modern urban landscape. In Vancouver there is little left of historic value within the development areas to remember the once thriving waterfronts. To reflect the maritime and rail heritage of Coal Harbour, existing  190 boatyards and rail and locomotive displays will be retained. The rail displays, called "Memory Rails" will recall the site's historic claim as the "end of the line." In an attempt to make Coal Harbour unique, the developer plans to adopt the arts as an organizing theme similar to what Yokohama has done. Because of this policy, a 1,500 seat cultural arts complex will be constructed. Along False Creek to capture the significance of the site's rail and maritime heritage, Pacific Place will reuse the CPR roundhouse as a community centre. The roundhouse will be the focal point for the development of a new residential community. Waterfronts often possess unique opportunities to reuse older structures. The character of the waterfront must be closely examined before any decision is made to remove waterfront structures. Waterfront locations are prime attractions for converted homes and offices near the CBD. Adaptive reuse of just about any waterfront building has invariably turned into an economic success, from a turn-of-the-century chocolate factory to fish markets and canneries. Simple maritime artifacts such as anchors and fish nets have been successfully used to add to the character and reflect the maritime past. Modern buildings can be designed to reflect the maritime heritage. In Yokohama the Grand Inter-Continental Hotel is designed to represent a sail and the National Auditorium represents a seashell. Today the community is more aware of the heritage and development potential of its waterfronts than ever before. Any attempt to destroy a part of the history of the waterfront will be met with strong objections. The result will be long delays in development approvals and poor relations between the citizens and the developer. A modern city should not reject its past but celebrate its heritage as an asset for the future. 4.3  Goals and Objectives Law classifies revitalization policies into two topologies: those that are motivated by market  forces and those that are driven by social concerns (Law, 148). Market-driven motives attempt to  191 capitalize on the advantages of the city centre and encourage activities such as office development, high-income condominiums and tourism. Within this approach public money is used to fund basic infrastructure. This commitment is deemed essential to gain the confidence of the private development community. Turnbridge writes that "while the profit motive is primarily associated with the development industry, governments have become increasingly cost-conscious and thus more prone to accepting profit-motivated proposals" (Turnbridge, 80). Market-driven developments tend to compromise on community and social benefits, open space and lower-income housing unless government intervention is taken to protect community needs. Socially motivated approaches to revitalization have typically emphasized the needs of the residents for better housing, community facilities and employment opportunities. Ley observes that developing waterfront land is one of the few options remaining for re-housing those displaced by gentrification (Ley, 1986/87). This supports the emphasis on including low-income housing in most waterfront developments. In practice, however, this study found that these two approaches are linked. Before developers could gain the necessary commercial and retail space and housing densities they were required to provide a comprehensive package of community benefits. Local and national governments have sought to revitalize waterfronts for various motives: to increase local taxes, a concern for social justice or as a means to protect the central functions of the CBD. Some cities use waterfront redevelopment to create strong, dynamic and visually attractive downtown cores that can give a focus and identity to the region. Intervention motivated by these considerations has sometimes been labeled as "boosterism" (Law, 148). Other goals and objectives include the creation of jobs to replace inner-city jobs lost to suburban locations, provision of housing, improved leisure amenities, and heritage conservation. Mikicich, in his study of North American waterfronts, defined ten common waterfront development objectives (Table 2).  192 Table 2 C O M M O N WATERFRONT OBJECTIVES Exploit prime inner-city real estate Restore historic links between the community and its waterfront Enhance the quality of life by providing new community amenities Capitalize on the waterfront's amenity value in attracting private investment Stimulate revitalization of adjacent districts Create opportunities for commercial development Provide inner-city housing Address the issues of affordability and special needs housing Maximize returns on public investment Improve the quality of the physical environment Source: Mikicich, 42.  These objectives were repeated time and again in all of the case studies, became a constant theme, varying only in the degree of importance each city placed on the objective. For example, Vancouver and San Francisco stressed the issue of affordability and special needs housing whereas Brisbane saw the main objectives as exploiting prime inner-city real estate and the enhancement of the quality of life by providing new community amenities. The development objectives in Newcastle and Sydney are to stimulate revitalization of adjacent districts, provide inner-city housing and create opportunities for commercial development. Yokohama's M M 21 focused on creating opportunities for large scale, high-tech, information based, commercial development. The prime objective of MM21 is to create an information city of the 21st century, active around the clock. A detailed evaluation of Pacific Rim waterfronts revealed similar waterfront objectives to Mikicich's findings (Table 3).  193 Table 3 PACIFIC R I M WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES  Facilitate economic revitalization of the waterfront with emphasis on increasing employment opportunities and choices. Create a harbourside community where people can live, work and play in the same environment. One with a sense of place, a unique character, a community focus, pedestrian oriented, within walking distance of the CBD, fully integrated with the surrounding areas and providing a range of recreational and cultural activities, community services, employment opportunities, and educational facilities, accessible to all. Create residential areas that provide a variety of housing types and sizes for varied income levels, including affordable and subsidized housing, thereby creating a large, diverse inner-city population base that will contribute to the life and vitality of the city. Create commercial/retail development that complements the CBD. Avoid retail shopping areas that would adversely affect downtown shopping and avoid locating major office development on sites directly next to the waterfront. Provide local, street oriented commercial/retail uses, located along the waterfront. Increase tourism growth and activity by facilitating the development of accommodation, convention and other tourism facilities that provide 24-hour activity on the waterfront. Improve pedestrian and vehicle access to the waterfront and linkages to the CBD. Incorporate a highly accessible, continuous, waterfront walkway/promenade that separates cyclists and pedestrians. Provide an efficient public transportation link with the CBD and region; ensure adequate traffic circulation and provide a variety of transportation choices that will minimize adverse traffic effects. Enhance the heritage of the site through adaptive reuse of heritage structures and preservation of existing landmarks/artifacts; maintain the traditional maritime character; and encourage uses that reflect the traditional maritime nature of the area. Create a comprehensive, integrated network of cycle and pedestrian paths, and public open space maximizing open spaces along the shoreline; provide a variety of waterfront experiences designed to enhance waterfront activity; Incorporate a variety of uses that are people oriented and add vitality and interest to the waterfront. Create an environmentally and ecologically sustainable development by: encouraging walking, cycling and use of public transport; improving the quality of the waterways and foreshore; and protecting the natural environment. Source: Various planning documents were used to compile this list of common objectives.  Perhaps Sydney's strategy for the City West provides the one objective that best sums up the principal objective of all the waterfront developments: Development of mixed use waterfront precincts that combine economic activity and people places, creating a harbourside city in which to live and work; maintain the traditional maritime character; take advantage of access to water and water views; and provide a variety of uses including: employment, housing parks, theaters, restaurants, specialty shops and public water-based recreational activities (Strategy, 1-3)  194 Each city had its own set of regional and urban issues to consider when establishing the goals and objectives for the redevelopment of the waterfront. The goals and objectives were further influenced by physical constraints, environmental considerations and community needs. This study found that cities such as San Francisco, Brisbane and Vancouver that had no clearly defined set of goals and objectives from the start experienced significant difficulty in designing a development mix acceptable to the community. In all three cases the development went through at least three development attempts before final approval. In addition, those cities that did not involve the community from the beginning of the planning process experienced significant delay and expense. As a result, these developments have been in the planning process for nearly ten years. The goals and objectives are, by necessity, the first and most critical step in the planning process, for it is from the project goals and objectives that the plan and appropriate land use policy evolve.  100  They must be established through a cooperative planning process, involving the community,  developers, consultants, city, and state planning authorities. Hodge writes: One of the central notions of modern community planning is that identification of goals is an integral part of the planning process. . . . Goals are basic to the planning process and, thus, become a cornerstone of the plan. . . . The importance of goals stems from' the fact that they provide the means by which the community, through its plan, may specify what needs are are to be served and also whose needs are to be served by the proposed land-use arrangements (Hodge, 179). The community must clearly define and communicate its goals and objectives for its waterfront well before the design process begins. In the end this will save time and money and provide a better development. From these goals and objectives the city must provide the policy and guidance needed by the developer to produce a workable plan that will not continually be revised as a result of changing political agendas or community priorities. The objectives and policies must not be changed once they are approved. The final goals, objectives and policies must be formalized and published in public documents. The developer will be making financial commitments based on the 101  195 objectives established by the city. Needless changes will create poor working relationships and a lack of trust. Finally, changes could lead to costly financial obligations on the city's part and put the entire development in jeopardy. 4.4  Land Use Waterfront sites are a scarce resource and as such offer special opportunities for development.  Easton classifies these opportunities into three broad categories: 1) Water Dependent - those that must have waterfront sites. Tfiese include marine terminals and recreational uses such as small boat marinas; 2) Water Related - those uses that benefit from waterfront sites particularly for transport of raw materials such as forest products; and 3) Water Enhanced - those uses that could occur anywhere but attract additional patronage because of waterfront amenities (Easton, 21). Because of the special characteristics of waterfront property, development pressures and conflicts among the varying interests over what use to make of waterfronts are intense. Goodwin lists three special characteristics of waterfront land that cause it to be allocated differently than urban land away from the waterfront: 1) its value for water dependent uses, 2) its high value as a recreational and scenic site means that it will be developed earlier and more intensely than inner-city land, and 3) it commands a premium price because of its limited supply (Goodwin, 296). Tlie land also commands a premium price because of its prime location usually next to the CBD. In Yokohama's case, not only was the land scarce but over half the property was on fill, increasing its value even more. Trie controversy arises over what policy is suitable for land use on the revitalized waterfront. Developers support a policy of unrestricted use. That is, the highest and best use of waterfront land should be decided by site characteristics and market forces. Goodwin writes, "The urban land market if left to itself, results in the allocation of land to its highest and best use" (Goodwin, 296). Wrenn believes that restrictions on land use "perpetuate the under-utilization and deterioration of urban  196 waterfronts. In effect, land is reserved for uses that it cannot support" (Wrenn, 208). Goodwin also writes that "without regulation protecting navigation and commerce uses, urban development of the kind found surrounding the core of the CBD would tend to encroach on the water's edge: hotels, office buildings, residential condominiums" (Goodwin, 296). Waterfront revitalization has typically focused upon rehabilitation and redevelopment for a wide diversity of commercial, retail, residential and recreational uses. Samperi's "New Plant Model" for modern waterfront development consists of a mix of commercial, retail, residential, recreational and cultural uses creating a total environment where people can live, work and play (Samperi, 48). These traditional uses generate the greatest competition for space and economic benefit. A mixed-use approach can produce the necessary critical mass needed to support a full range of community services and facilities (Wrenn, 209). Competing for this space, particularly in the large urban centers, are high technology industries, service-oriented office uses and public and institutional land uses. There is also renewed emphasis on working waterfronts, water transportation uses and commercial water-based activities. Hall writes that "the usual development model for waterfronts is a private-public involvement in a stereotypical development that includes marinas, other water-based leisure, museums, heritage buildings, restaurants, desirable housing, perhaps a hotel and a conference center in a large scheme" (Hall, 9). He points out that the model is not invariable but revitalization with a strong social content is, however, rare. Over time, there is a tendency to shift away from social and community needs towards more commercial content as success of the project seems assured. Without a strong and continuous community voice to promote social and community needs commercialization, is inevitable. In Brisbane the state government rejected the City Council's recommendation for less commercial use and proceeded with a revised development plan that incorporated more office space than originally planned and there is now serious doubt that the SBC can fill the office space.  197 This study found that there has been a shift towards more social housing and community benefits and less commercial, retail and market housing. This shift results from the communities' increased awareness of the value of their waterfronts, and pressure for major social changes and quality of life improvements to the developments. Only an effective public policy can prevent the compromise of public amenities. In all cases, public pressure resulted in significant community benefits and increased affordable and social housing.  102  Invariably the greatest conflict over land use arose over the social and community needs. Typically it was conflict over density, views, open space, affordable and low income family housing and community facilities that were the most contentious issues. Turnbridge writes: While the profit motive is primarily associated with the development industry, governments have become increasingly cost-conscious and thus more prone to accept profit-motivated proposals. . . . The social conflict is most visible in the largest cities, where space pressures are the greatest and the release of waterfront property has proven to be a bonanza to the public and the developers. Social confrontation also generates the highest political profile (Turnbridge, 80). Tweedale, in his study of dockland redevelopment in Cardiff, Wales, found that by far the most profitable land use was retailing with housing second. However, projected profits were not as great as in many other redevelopments due to the substantial proportion of housing that must be either affordable or social housing (Tweedale, 191). In all of the case studies except MM21, community involvement focused on the issue of housing and affordability. In each case the developer voiced concerns over the exorbitant amount of social housing required. Between the 1981 and the 1990 proposal for Mission Bay, affordable housing increased from zero to 3,000 units and market housing fell from 6,000 to 5,000 units. Forty percent of the total housing units in Coal Harbour must be either social or rental and in Pacific Place 20 percent of the units must be social housing. In Newcastle, Housing Strategy for Inner Newcastle recommended: 1) that an average of 10 percent of all new dwellings throughout the inner Newcastle area must be public and community housing, 2) increasing affordable housing, and 3) constructing affordable units within the inner-city to help  198 maintain a balanced social mix. The Commonwealth BBC program has allocated $25 million to carry out the strategy. In Brisbane the intent was to develop high quality market housing. The government recognized that the river front property was prime development land and would provide it with the greatest return in land sales. The Corporation was expected to raise A$131 million by selling part of the Expo site for commercial and residential development. As a result, the Corporation could not ignore the economic reality that half the property must be sold. This meant that there could be no reduction in the allowable floor space limit since the government felt that this would deter developers and lessen the financial return on the site. Thus, although the public wanted more affordable housing, economic considerations became the overriding criteria for dictating the land use mix (Matthew, 9). Tweedale found that traditional industry, including small factory units, had very poor returns. The only encouraged or accepted industrial use was for high technology industries, concentrated in a technology campus (Tweedale, 192). This was true in both Yokohama and Sydney and the first plan for Pacific Place. The Minato Mirai 21 Teleport Plan calls for a high-level information network linked throughout Japan and the world.  103  The system will provide various kinds of information by  using advanced technology for information transmission. The first concept for Pacific Place called for the development of a research centre tied into the existing science centre and a high-tech international finance centre with state of the art satellite communications. Conclusions from the City West Market Demand Study suggested that one of the best opportunities for employment was in high technology. Because of these findings, the City West strategy includes an Advanced Technology Park as part of the Eveleigh Precinct development. The aim of the ATP is to nurture ideas, to research and work with industry to develop those ideas into the latest in technology.  104  To try to satisfy the often conflicting private and public demands, each community attempted to balance land use according to the urban and regional issues it faced. The development objectives  199 and goals reflected those issues and were subsequently published in policy documents. The final land use mix reflected the priority given to each objective. After analyzing the land use for each case study the basic development components were found to be the same: retail and commercial; recreation, parks and open space; residential; community services; and cultural facilities. The difference was in the number, size, type and area of each component. The variations were primarily determined by ten factors: regional and urban issues, degree of community involvement, culture, climate, allowable densities, design criteria, site restrictions, government involvement, environmental and ecological considerations, and financing. Tweedale suggests that public investment in infrastructure explains the similarity between land use schemes across international boundaries, since only the most profitable developments are constructed. He goes on to explain that local factors such as the ability of the city council and community groups to 'persuade' the developer to provide community facilities, and social or affordable housing, alter the details of individual schemes. However, these represent planning gains and typically are either subsidized or fully paid for by local or other government funds. The overall result of the development pressures and compromises is the typical waterfront redevelopment comprising (with some local variation) market housing, retail, commercial, and recreational and leisure facilities (Tweedale, 190). Mikicich concludes that "The nature and form of waterfront development are shaped by structural and demographic forces, general economic conditions, public planning and land use controls, and motivation behind redevelopment" (Mikicich, 157). Creating an active, lively and diverse waterfront is an essential component. To accomplish this, land use activities must maintain and enhance such elements of a working waterfront as marinas, fishing fleets, towing and barge services, water taxis, ferries, and ocean liner terminals. Related retail and commercial activities were fostered including fish markets, dive shops, boat sales, wind surf shops, nautical specialty shops, seafood restaurants, and harbourside cafes.  200 Commercial and retail development must complement the CBD and not compete with it. The development must provide local street oriented commercial/retail uses located along the waterfront and avoid locating major office development on sites directly next to the waterfront. Other common major facilities include hotels, convention and/trade centres and cultural facilities such as performing art centres, maritime museums and public art programs. A relatively new use vying for commercial waterfront space are casino developments such as those under development in Brisbane and Sydney and recently proposed for Vancouver. Ann Breen and Dick Rigby write in Waterfront World: Many waterfront communities are turning to gambling installations as a cure for municipal ills. As with most trends, the surest thing to predict is that some cities will end up winners and some will lose. In this respect, it resembles the festival market fad of the 1980s as economic development saviours for cities; some worked brilliantly, others flopped (Breen & Rigby, Gambling, l ) . 105  A residential component is essential to: 1) provide a large, diverse inner-city population base that will contribute to the life and vitality of the city, 2) stimulate an active waterfront, and 3) maintain the economic viability of new retail/commercial endeavours. Residential neighbourhoods must be human in scale, provide a community atmosphere, create an identity and unique character, be pedestrian friendly and fully integrated with the surrounding areas. They must also provide a range of recreational and cultural activities, community services, employment opportunities, and educational facilities. This study did not find convincing arguments to support the requirement to include low income housing on some of the most valuable property in the city especially when reasonable alternatives exist. Alternatives include cash-in-lieu or turn-key operations. Either alternative could provide more housing, much sooner, and located where it is needed than under the current policy. In all cases the public demanded provision of a full range of community amenities. Large tracts of open space along the waterfront that are easily accessible and complemented by cycle and pedestrian paths were the most vigorously demanded amenities. Mikicich writes: "The notions of  201 public access and the creation of public amenities are fundamental principles of waterfront development" (Mikicich, 157). 4.5  Jurisdictional Conflicts Jurisdictional ownership in waterfronts is more complicated than elsewhere because of the  presence of water, rail and industrial lands. These land uses introduce additional and overlapping government agencies and result in a multitude of additional governmental regulations and permit requirements. The multi-jurisdictional structure produces redundancy and inefficiency. Other problems include the lack of coordination between various levels of government, intergovernmental rivalries, and a lengthy and complicated approval process. Discovering ownership of waterfront land and obtaining land titles may be more complicated since waterfronts are generally in older sections of a city. Slack writes: In Canada the largest single obstacle [in the redevelopment of harbour land] is the multiplicity of jurisdictions in the public sector. . . . There are so many levels of government involved and such a bewildering array of departments connected in some way with the harbour that renovation is virtually impossible under present conditions. The lack of contact between the city, and its planning department in particular, and the port authority is striking. Mechanisms for the exchange of ideas are rarely in place, and as a result there is little interaction. . . . The problems are most acute in the National Harbours Board ports where channels for considering local planning needs rarely exist. . . . Port authorities are simply concerned with running the Port as a business and rarely consider other matters (Slack, 33). The result is a process that is often counterproductive. In a soft market these lengthy delays have forced the developer to change the project design to ensure that the project remains economically viable.  106  This can translate into increasing the density of the project or focusing on a higher income  market. In mega-projects where the regulations are oppressively complex and stringent, developers tend to be more cautious and deliberate (Wrenn, 206). With regard to Pacific Place: It has been more than four years since the land was sold to Concord Pacific and the site is as empty as the day the Expo buildings were razed. . . . According to Concord Pacific a project of this size has to be built one step at a time and the steps have been painfully slow. It took a  202 year to get the plan approved, and another year for the zoning approval for one of the seven neighbourhoods. . . .The company has found that with the present softening of the condominium market, especially among the higher end units, it has had to go a more affordable way. . . . One of the problems with the project is its unwieldy size. When developers usually build, they build piecemeal, Concord Pacific is building half of an inner-city. The paperwork reaches snowdrift proportions. . . . They're prudent enough to be watching the market and they're going to build into the strong markets. . . . How long it will take is unknown. They have never promised anything specifically when it comes to completion (McMartin, B3). In Sydney: The involvement of the Department of Planning, Sydney City Council and another redevelopment authority [CWDC] in the planning and design process has caused many delays to the project and increases in costs which are difficult to justify. . . . The creation of an Urban Design Advisory Committee was intended to provide advice to the Department of Planning on proposals but has resulted in further delays, compromise and an uncommitted committee. The political climate has also delayed decision making, in some cases resulting in no decision making. In summary, the requirement for the government as landowner to produce planning controls for its own land without a clear statement for the requirements from the consent authority has produced a long and difficult road to consensus and delays in development. The CWDC as the developer of the government's land has been delayed in implementing its proposals by an uncertain political and planning framework (Clark, Letter, 13 Feb. 1995). Because of this cumbersome and complex process many development proposals have been cancelled and several developers have simply withdrawn from the process. A further complication to the process are planning documents that provide too little guidance. The result has been numerous changes to the guidelines to make the documents workable. As a result, some developers are threatening legal action against the city for damages based on the increased costs they are being required to absorb to meet the new guidelines.  107  Development options may appeal differently to each level of government involved, resulting in conflict. Conflicts are most apparent in the politically highest-profile developments and may involve governments either directly or indirectly. Indirect conflicts usually occur because of contentious policy emanating from Crown corporations with specific waterfront mandates. This creates significant difficulties for the developers when trying to sort out the approval process. The City of Vancouver and the Province of British Columbia both had conflicting visions for the  203 redevelopment of the former EXPO 86 lands. B. C. Development Corporation, as the landowner, sold the land as a single package to the highest bidder based on a design competition for the future development of the site. The City had virtually no say in the selection process. The province conducted the process entirely behind closed doors without public participation. An invitation to attend closed door meetings on the development of the EXPO 86 site has city planning commissioners worried . . . . Some commission members fear the move may prevent them from publicly voicing concerns without even giving them a say in choosing a developer. . . . It seems more like a method of buying our silence by letting us get in on the action. . . . Any development would still have to go to public hearings (Cox, "Expo site"). The local government made it quite clear that it had full planning and development control once the process was complete. The result of not involving the local government or the community at the start of process directly resulted in serious delays in the project and a complete revision to the original design concept. Once the site was sold and planning control came under the City's jurisdiction, a False Creek Planning Group was established. The responsibility of the group was to coordinate all aspects of the project and to maintain continual dialogue with the developer and other public and private agencies. The process began in 1983 and by 1993 little development had taken place. In the USA, the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (1972) provided a national background for waterfront improvement; however, compliance by the states to its terms was left voluntary and its application is accordingly uneven and incomplete. In San Francisco, with the exception of the 108  conversion of Pier 39, there has not been a major waterfront project undertaken in the last 20 years. The main reason is the lack of consensus among the multiple layers of government involved in the Port of San Francisco: San Francisco's waterfront is a remarkable resource caught in the coils of a serpentine bureaucracy. . . . [Its] waterfront represents a maze of overlapping and frequently competing jurisdictions. . . . The process of developing a plan for the waterfront has been Byzantine in its complexity and glacial in its progress (Brechin, 52). The stalemate developed because the agencies and constituencies were pursuing their own mandates in an uncoordinated way. This resulted from not having a mechanism to bring all the parties  204 together. There are four primary agencies that have jurisdiction in the Bay: the State Lands Commission, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the Port Authority and the City of San Francisco Planning Department.  109  In addition there are over 300  neighbourhood special interest groups active in San Francisco, including many with waterfront interests. The conflicting visions and jurisdictional manoeuvring in San Francisco resulting from overlapping jurisdictions have been described as "a series of strainers, with different size holes. Good ideas go in at the top, but nothing can get through" (Breen, 1986, 67). Approval of the Mission Bay project has taken ten years. The current plan is the third attempt at getting the project through the cumbersome and complex approval process. Neither of the first two plans conformed to the City's policies and urban design principles and aroused so much opposition that they never reached the public hearing stage. Finally, the City had to step in and take the lead. The result was a unique joint planning process in which the private developer, Catellus, funded a public agency, the City Planning Department, to take the lead responsibility for planning the development. The massive coordination effort included 30 city agencies and several regional, state and national agencies. The City gave final approval in February 1991. However, the project still needed the approval of the State Lands Commission and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. In Australia, the New South Wales State Department of Planning operates as the consent authority for all state property development projects in New South Wales. Managing the state land and buildings is the Property Services Group (PSG) which is also responsible for property development and project management. Currently the PSG is responsible for three of Australia's biggest urban renewal projects: City West Urban Strategy in Sydney, the Honeysuckle development in Newcastle, and development of the 2000 Summer Olympics facilities at Homebush Bay. As the property developer, the PSG has established autonomous Crown corporations to manage the  205 development of each site.  110  In the state of Queensland the South Bank Corporation, also a Crown  corporation, is managing the South Bank development in Brisbane. A key mandate of these corporations is to create catalysts for private sector development. To do this, these corporations are mandated to prepare the master development plans, provide essential infrastructure, subdivide the land into developable packages, and promote orderly investment and development. The funding for these improvements is provided by the Commonwealth and State governments under the Building Better Cities program. These funds are managed by the corporations on behalf of the state government. The municipal planning authority does not have jurisdiction over the state lands. They are, however, approval authorities for any private lands being developed. To produce a functional planning document for those areas where Sydney City Council is consent authority, the council has made several amendments to planning documents. Minato Mirai 21 is a national project supported politically and financially by the government. Jurisdictional divisions of responsibilities for the development include: 1) the City of Yokohama is responsible for general coordination and land reclamation, 2) the Japanese government for construction of public facilities, 3) the Housing and Urban Development Corporation (HUDC) for land readjustment, and 4) the third sector for the operation of public facilities such as railways and district heating services. In order for the development to progress as a national project, the public and private sectors must work together and plan for coordinated land use. Minato Mirai Corporation was established as third sector body (Crown corporation) to coordinate the public and private sectors (MM21, Info Bulletin, 1992).  111  The landowners in the Minato Mirai area and Minato Mirai Corporation have concluded a "Basic Agreement on Town Development" for Minato Mirai 21. The agreement provides for voluntary rules as agreed to by the relevant parties on town development appropriate to the area. Town Council was established with responsibility for carrying out the rules.  112  A  206 Only in San Francisco and Vancouver are there no senior levels of government control, urban development corporations, or special development agencies. In these cases the private sector is implementing the developments and the municipal planning agencies and local governments are coordinating the planning and approval process. These examples show that effective cooperation between all levels of government, and the public and private sectors is essential if the projects are to proceed with the least delay and least expense. To do this the regulatory process needs to be more responsive to both development opportunities and problems. Although government agencies have a responsibility to protect the public interest in the planning process, this should not be achieved by penalizing the development industry. Review periods need to be shortened and redundancies resulting from jurisdictional overlaps removed. The cost of 'shepherding' a development proposal through the permit process is much too high in both time and money (Wrenn, 206). The most striking differences in the planning process were the project management structures and degree of government involvement. In the Australian and Japanese case studies, there is tremendous public financial support and direct senior government control of the management and development process. In Vancouver and San Francisco government involvement is primarily limited to the local level. Managing the planning and development process for these large developments consumes vast amounts of time, money and staff. Using existing planning department resources often exceeds existing budgets and staff availability. In San Francisco and Vancouver, the City resolved the dilemma by having the developer fund the planning process. Funds were provided to the City to either hire additional staff or to contract services. An alternative method used in Australia is to establish a separate government department for planning and development. The Property Services Group (PSG) and the New South Wales State Department of Planning are two such departments.  207 Currently the PSG is managing the City West, Honeysuckle and the 2000 Summer Olympics projects. The state Department of Planning has the mandate to review all state master development plans prepared by the PSG to ensure they meet all planning regulations. Unlike the situations in Vancouver and San Francisco, the state Department of Planning does not have the resources needed to cope with its role as the consent authority for these large, complex projects. The result is added delay to an already lengthy approval process. The system used by Australia in the projects studied had definite merit for the development of surplus government lands. Its value lay in recovering the greatest return for the land and the overall control of the development. However its weakness appeared to be in its involvement of and responsiveness to the local community, coordination with and involvement of local authorities and its cost effectiveness in reducing time and resources. However these weaknesses could easily be solved. Such a system should be examined in the Canadian context. To set up such a system in Canada would require the expansion of the Ministry of Urban Affairs. The ministry would require a planning and development mandate and the resources to establish Crown Corporations to manage property development and disposal.  4.6  Economic Costs and Benefits Financing waterfront projects poses special economic difficulties. The most critical financial  consideration is the dependence on the extensive participation of the private sector. Richard Clark, Assistant Development Manager for the City West Development Corporation states: "The participation in the project of the private sector in the redevelopment is vital to the success of the project and current property market activity is severely constrained by restriction in finance." Participation in these large scale waterfront redevelopment projects has been clearly jeopardized by downward economic trends throughout the Pacific Rim. This has required the delay in implementing some projects and the reassessment of the development mix in others. In Vancouver,  208 Concord Pacific recently increased the total number of condominium units in Pacific Place to make the project more economically viable and to address changing lifestyles. The company has found that with the present softening of the condominium market, especially among the higher end units, it has had to go a more affordable way. . . . They're prudent enough to be watching the market and they're going to build into the strong markets. . . . How long it will take is unknown (McMartin, B3). In San Francisco the economics of the project are so critical and the development agreement so complicated that, although the project is approved, no development has taken place. In Brisbane tenders for the redevelopment of the Expo site were called for in 1986 during a strong development market. However, the project was delayed because of strong public opposition. This resulted in the government re-tendering the project when the preferred developer refused to accommodate the new concessions the government was demanding. Simultaneously, the real estate market weakened considerably which greatly reduced the opportunity for many of the companies originally interested in the redevelopment to make a profit. "The recession has been so fierce that growth in tenant demand for offices will not appear for some time" (Este, 47). A further negative factor arose from the government changing the development guidelines and removing the most profitable features of the development — the Casino and World Trade Centre. As a result, the financial risk of the project greatly increased and "local developers will become even more wary of being involved in such a large, expensive redevelopment" (Robson, "Expo site", 42). Because of this overall commercial and residential development has been seriously delayed. The first residential condominium, the $24 million Park Avenue, is only now nearing completion. To ensure its economic viability most of the 52 units had to be pre-sold before construction could begin. SBC released the first block of commercial property for redevelopment at the end of 1992.  113  Development has yet to begin on either  of the two office buildings planned for the site. Urban waterfront redevelopment is vastly more expensive than efforts to redevelop urban land away from the water's edge. Epstein gives several reasons for this:  209 1) Land assembly - This can often prove beyond the capability of any one developer. In Mission Bay and Coal Harbour railroad companies are the owners and developers of the property. In City West, Honeysuckle, Brisbane and MM21 the government is the major landholder. To ensure the marketability and maximum return on its property, the government plans to service the site and then subdivide into small 'developable' parcels before selling. In Pacific Place, although the government was the landowner, it chose to sell the site as a single parcel of unserviced property no matter what the real estate market was like. 2) Obsolete or nonexistent infrastructure - This problem is the most severe in Yokohama since almost half the site will be on reclaimed land. In addition, the existing streets are too narrow and insufficient for traffic, resulting in congested streets.  114  In Vancouver and San Francisco funding these facilities  is the responsibility of the developer, whereas in Australia and Japan the public is paying the cost. 3) Expenditures for shoreline protection and enhancement - This issue is a major concern for all of the developments, not only for environmental reasons but also costs to provide a variety of experiences. Each development spent significant funds enhancing and protecting the existing shoreline through the construction of seawalls, waterside promenades and cycle paths, limiting fill, and protecting fish habitats. In Mission Bay the degraded China Basin Channel will be cleared to eliminate refuse and rubble from the edges and the banks will be redesigned with landscaping, paved terraces and walkways. The development will also include major improvements to 2.5 miles of San Francisco Bay shoreline. The intent is to repair the damage done in previous decades and render it a healthy, natural setting for wildlife and people (San Francisco Dept. of City Planning, Proposal for Adoption, 3-135). In MM21 massive construction is required to construct a seawall around the entire site since half the area is on reclaimed land from Yokohama Bay. 4) Upgrading working waterfronts and marina facilities - Developers view new marina developments as an essential loss leader. They are required to attract visitors who will patronize shops and to  210 enhance the value of shorefront property for residential development. In all cases except Mission Bay, marinas are an integral part of the development. The Coal Harbour development must upgrade existing marina facilities to meet environmental standards. These standards require live-a-boards and floating homes to be fully serviced. In Newcastle considerable funds are being expended to upgrade wharfs for the commercial fishing fleet. 5) Environmental protection against natural hazards - This is especially true for construction in Yokohama where berths for domestic transportation have been especially designed to endure earthquakes. This is to ensure that boats can moor for evacuation of people and supply transportation. 6) Additional construction costs due to soil instability resulting from land fill - This is a major expenditure in Yokohama where half the site will be created on new fill. To provide the space required for their railroad yards, the railroad companies used fill to create the current development sites of Pacific Place, Mission Bay and Newcastle. 7) Environmental protection to prevent soil pollutant from seeping into adjacent waters and to treat sewage and divert storm runoff - In most cases waste from the surrounding industries was used as fill. Invariably the wastes contained elevated levels of contamination. Pacific Place, for example, had to seal 9.7 hectares (24 acres) of land to minimize the risk of exposure to contaminated soils and to prevent ground water from entering False Creek. This, plus an extremely complicated remediation program, has resulted in the provincial government spending an estimated $40-$ 100 million for remediation costs (Branham, "Expo"). In San Francisco the area was used as a garbage dump and as a sewer. Half the sewage of the city flowed into Mission Bay at one time. The developer must absorb the cost of environmental cleanup and is required to post a $30 million bond. 8) The final reason for the excessive cost of waterfront development is the cost for the provision of public access and open space - This includes not only pedestrian access but automobile access as well. In some cases this requires constructing platforms or bridges over highways or rerouting or tearing  211 down existing highways. In Mission Bay part of the agreement calls for tearing down a freeway. In Pyrmont Point a major new ring road system and promenade will provide access to the waterfront. In Sydney, Vancouver, and Mission Bay major construction will also be required for the provision of shoreline access roads and ring roads. In Brisbane the main arterial passes under the development to minimize traffic. Coal Harbour will construct an underground service road to access the commercial precinct. In all cases, a complete system of roads is required to provide public access to the newly created neighbourhoods. In all the cases studied the provision of open space was a major requirement. The average space amounted to 25-50 percent of the developable area. In Vancouver and San Francisco the developer is responsible for not only providing the land but for constructing the parks as well. Traditionally, public funding has paid for parks, promenades, and other public improvements that are attractive to investors. In the past, city officials have tended to offer community and social benefits along with improvements to site infrastructure to make a project economically attractive to the developer. Thus, including amenities as part of any development has become an economic development tool for local governments. They attract private development, giving the cities the means to attract new business, jobs and tax revenues while enhancing recreational uses of the waterfront. Cities' efforts have concerned all facets of improving the 'Quality of Life' by providing cultural facilities, restoration of historic buildings, provision of parks, open space and recreational facilities, affordable housing, educational institutions, and daycare facilities (McNulty, 86). Tweedale's study found that of all the land uses, land clearance and site preparation remain the most unprofitable operations for the developer and are usually the most direct forms of government subsidies (Tweedale, 192). Occasionally cities have been accused of giving away more concessions than they have received (Stephens, 42). However, with rising costs, severe economic conditions and shrinking public resources, this is changing. Cities are attempting to find new and innovative means  212 of convincing developers to provide the amenities that the city wants but can no longer afford. In Vancouver, San Francisco and Sydney the developer is required to provide a large portion of the community benefits as part of the development agreement. A cooperative planning and negotiation process involving the city, community and the developer establishes the developer's obligations. Two key planning principles of the City West development state that: 1) the public domain is to be developed and financed through contributions of land and/or funding by private developers, and 2) contributions to the provision of new and upgrading of existing, public social and physical infrastructure also must be provided by private developers. In Brisbane as part of the agreement to operate the new casino, the developer is responsible for paying $139 million towards the cost of constructing the $170 million Convention and Exhibition Centre. Private investors are usually reluctant to get involved in waterfront development because of the area's unsavoury image or because of the site's deteriorated condition and lack of infrastructure. Commonly, the additional costs are prohibitive and make the venture unprofitable. As a result, to prove their commitment to revitalization of the waterfronts and to accelerate the development, cities have provided the necessary infrastructure and community facilities as a catalyst to stimulate private investment. The Honeysuckle Development Corporation felt that public investment was critical to the development: The availability of Federal and State funding . . . presents an opportunity for substantial upgrading of sites . . . ahead of anticipated market demand. . . . It is clearly recognized than (public) funding is a catalyst to achieving development in a much shorter time frame that might otherwise have been the case. However, the property development industry will generally only respond to market demand. The impact of (public) funding is that site works may be undertaken well in advance of land disposal and utilization (HDC, Strategy & Business Plan, 21). In Brisbane, representatives of the Expo Authority, Queensland State Government and Brisbane City Council visited major redevelopment schemes in Australia, Europe and the United States. They  213 concluded that "inner city renewal requires substantial public sector intervention, in the form of public funding and incentives to development" (Gibson, 30). Tweedale refers to this as "priming the pump' by which the local governments cover aspects of the development that is unprofitable, thereby encouraging the private developer to invest the remainder of the capital to develop the site (Tweedale, 190). Mikicich states: Private investment in waterfront development has generally followed on the heels of public investment in transportation and infrastructure, amenities, community image building, and economic incentives for the development industry. Because of high construction costs and financial risks associated with waterfront development - the public sector has had to "prime the pump' by creating a secure investment climate (Mikicich, 39). Local governments rationalize their investment costs in terms of expected social and economic benefits. Direct economic benefits are realized by additional temporary construction jobs, permanent office and retail jobs, and added taxes. They tend to generate a multiplier effect so that the whole economy is affected. Indirect and induced benefits are jobs, housing, tourism, new community facilities and an improved quality of life. These benefits occur from the revenues generated by attracting tourists to the waterfront, who in turn spend money in shops, restaurants and on public amenities such as aquariums, museums, etc. Induced benefits may not be measurable. That is, the provision of a waterfront park, promenade or pier creates a positive image, thereby inducing business or residents to relocate there. Its economic and social benefits are unmeasurable but usually justify the public expense (McNulty, 91). Under the Building Better Cities Program, the Commonwealth and state governments in Australia have committed over $500 million towards the cost of infrastructure in the City West, South Bank and Honeysuckle developments. As a return on the investment, the City West strategy foresees the establishment of 75,000 to 85,000 additional permanent jobs. Economic benefits expected from a $100 million investment in infrastructure in Honeysuckle include 5,000-8,000 full time jobs once the project is complete. Up to 6,500 indirect jobs will be generated within Newcastle and the region. The  214 construction of Honeysuckle will create 1,400 direct jobs per annum in support industries (HDC, Business Strategy, 26). In Brisbane the $125 million invested by the public in the development of the South Bank Parklands will create nearly 12,800 jobs and untold indirect economic activity. In the 1993 annual report for the South Bank Development Corporation, visitor expenditures in the South Bank Parklands were reported at $27.9 million with visitations of 6.3 million (SBC, Annual Report 1993, 8). The Brisbane and Visitor Convention Bureau estimates $10 billion in economic benefits will be generated from the new $170 million Convention and Exhibition Centre over five years. Construction of the centre will create an additional 300 building jobs (Smith, 16). In Japan the government has committed over one billion yen for provision of all site services and infrastructure. Minato Mirai estimates that by providing the site infrastructure and all of the community, cultural, and recreational facilities ,private development within the area will create employment for 190,000. In Mission Bay, Catellus provides the land and has committed $250 million for infrastructure and a comprehensive package of community benefits. The Mission Bay project will create an estimated 24,000 jobs. Concord Pacific will provide $145 million for all community and social benefits and all infrastructure costs and site servicing. The development will create 12,000 jobs and generate 42,000 person years of construction work over the lifetime of the project. At Coal Harbour, Marathon Development is responsible for provision of all the community amenities, site infrastructure and environmental cleanup. The development will create 9,100 jobs and provide $90 million worth of community and social benefits. However, Tweedale found in his study that the returns anticipated by the government were seldom achieved and that, in fact, the public sector is massively subsidizing the private sector's efforts. Further studies by Tweedale and Samperi have found that the ratio of private investment to public investment is 4:1. This means that for every dollar invested by the public sector in  215 infrastructure, the private sector inputs four (Tweedale, 193; Samperi, 52). However, the cost of infrastructure does not usually include the added costs of planning, assembling land, restoring heritage buildings or environmental cleanup. These costs can often be substantial and quickly erode any revenues the government may have anticipated from the sale of surplus property. When Tweedale accounted for other public investment in transportation systems, heritage restoration, and cultural and recreation facilities the ratio decreased to 2:1 (Tweedale, 194). In Vancouver the developer of Pacific Place has determined that for every dollar invested there will be a three dollar return to the provincial economy. The estimated $2.5 billion investment by the developer is estimated to have a total impact of $6 billion on the B. C. economy. The HVRF in Newcastle estimates that $1 billion will be spent by the private and public sectors during the life of the project. This expenditure should generate an average of $110 million per year in indirect expenditures in the region. To address the issue of added planning costs for these mega developments, the cities of San Francisco and Vancouver passed these costs on to the developer. In San Francisco the developer provided $5 million to the City Planning Department to pay for the added costs and fund any special studies that were required. In Vancouver the developer paid an additional $180,000 to cover the added costs of application processing and drafting of the legal text for the final development agreements. Tweedale also suggests that the city's goals of solving inequality of opportunity in the fields of employment, housing and education will not be fully realized. Tweedale's study suggests that the permanent jobs that are created by the redevelopment will be of little long-term benefit to the local population and will go mainly to people from outside the area. Furthermore, the jobs will be of marginal value and be predominantly low paying and unskilled. Finally, he questions the value of the temporary construction jobs. He states that because of no binding agreements for local contractors to employ local labour or minority groups very few local people or unskilled labour will be employed (Tweedale, 194). In all of the cases reviewed in this study, only the Mission Bay project in San  216 Francisco has directly addressed these issues. As part of the agreement, Catellus will fund a comprehensive program of economic development, affirmative action, and job training. Hie program will include hiring San Francisco residents and minority groups and providing assistance funds for job training and leasing for local businesses. This program could cost up to $13.4 million over the development period. Tweedale argues that the low-cost housing which forms a major goal for the city will unlikely remain within the price range of those for whom it was designed. Prices will rapidly escalate due to speculation and competition for a desirable location will drive the price beyond their reach. In San Francisco, to prevent this, the City plans to keep all of its 2,300 affordable units permanently affordable through subsidies. The 800 units constructed by the developer will remain affordable for 30 years, after which the developer could elect to provide a cash subsidy to the city to construct an equivalent number of units elsewhere. In Vancouver the developer reduced unit size to maintain affordability. The argument for direct public involvement is that, without it, private developers could not, or would not, get involved in developing the land due to its image and the exorbitant cost of infrastructure. Yet Mission Bay, Coal Harbour, Pacific Place and Bayshore Gardens are being developed and paid for by private investment. A further argument is that the costs of public investment in infrastructure will be recovered in terms of jobs, revenues from land sales and other economic direct and indirect benefits. The public investment in community facilities, parks and cultural facilities benefits will be returned indirectly in terms of an improved quality of life. This argument is only partially correct since the trend is to have the developer pay for these improvements either directly or by exacting development fees. There are four advantages to the sale of small parcels of serviced land. First, the sale of serviced land will earn more revenue. Second, the sale is not dependent upon purchase by a single  217 developer. Third, the greater number of sales can adjust to the fluctuations in the real estate market. Finally, small parcels of land provide greater flexibility in land use and design. The disadvantage is that servicing the land requires large sums of capital that is often beyond the resources of local municipal or provincial/state budgets. In addition, if the real estate market suffers a downturn, the public could be left responsible for unproductive property for a significant period. Therefore, this system involves considerably more risk to the public. Finally, it is argued that the provision of public funds stimulates the development well ahead of when it might otherwise have been developed. In Mission Bay, Catellus has yet to begin development due to the cost of environmental cleanup, site servicing and inflexible city requirements for public amenities and housing. In Newcastle, City West and Brisbane the public portion of the project is proceeding because of huge injections of public funds and direct government involvement, yet to date no private development has taken place. 4.7  COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE PLANNING PROCESS Brand defines community participation as "the practice of involving as many people as  possible through consensus-building workshops in the planning, design, and implementation of environmental change to a specific area in a community" (Brand, 70). A theme constantly repeated is the need for greater community involvement in the planning of waterfront revitalization. As the demands for public use and improved access to the waterfront becomes more widespread, so does the need for public involvement. The California Legislature declared in the Coastal Act of 1976: The Legislature further finds and declares that the public has a right to fully participate in decisions affecting coastal planning, conservation and development; that achievement of sound coastal conservation and development is dependent upon public understanding and support; and that the continuing planning and implementation of programs for coastal conservation and development should include the widest opportunity for public participation (Brand, 70). This kind of support is essential to the success of a project, however, HRH Prince of Wales writes:  218 People should be involved willingly from the beginning in the improvement of their surroundings.You cannot force anyone to take part in the planning process. Legislation tries to make it possible for people to share some of the complex process of planning, but participation cannot be imposed: it has to start from the bottom up (Charles, HRH, 96). The developer must be open to the ideas and feedback from open public meetings that allow the public to voice concerns. Constructive responses will allow the developer to anticipate what will be acceptable and what will not. Recommendations and objections by citizen groups must be evaluated in terms of their viability and feasibility. Completion of a master plan usually triggers a series of public hearings and reviews by public agencies. "Herein lies one of nature's inherent conflicts: that between the developer who will argue for the highest level of density possible and the community which will insist on more public amenities than the project can possibly bear to hold" (Samperai, 52). It is the outcome of this community process that will decide the ultimate project design, development mix, community benefits, parks and open space. A well-planned effort involving the participation of the public and the business community before the formal approval process begins, is essential "for generating a give and take process which basically modifies the margins rather than attempting to redesign the entire body of the effort" (Samperai, 53). It is important for the public and private sectors to balance their interests as well as gain an equitable return for their respective investments — for the private investor this means the plan must work in a business sense. However, Wrenn warns that if the involvement of these citizen groups is not structured in a coherent and systematic way, then it can produce costly project delays and unnecessary conflicts. Often waterfront development projects become trapped in a cross fire of conflicting demands by different citizen interest groups. This was the case in Mission Bay when at one meeting the competing interest groups added up their demands and they totalled four times the entire area. Public officials view citizen participation as an important ingredient of the waterfront development process. If private development activities are to be compatible with community desires then citizens must be involved in  219 the decision-making process. Since the developer is initiating a project that could significantly affect the community, it is reasonable to expect that he must respond to community concerns through public hearings and the preparation of impact assessment studies. These studies should deal with such concerns as traffic, the environment, public access to the waterfront, open space and community benefits. In Mission Bay, half way through the planning process the work was put on hold while 20 special studies were prepared. In this instance, "the citizens trusted no one, not the developer, not the city, not even each other" (Porter, 28). Ultimately the involvement of the community in the development process will enhance the quality of the development and the overall quality of life. Citizen participation is necessary to ensure that public sector values are not sacrificed simply to accommodate private development. Similarly, it is essential to ensure that vocal minorities do not eliminate development opportunities. The public and private sectors must work together to create a manageable community involvement process that responds to both public objectives and private property rights (Wrenn, 214). Brand identifies six principles for effective community participation: 1) Locality - This involves both the project area and the community of people who identify with that place. To be successful the project should focus on a specific area and involve the local community. 2) Maximum Participation - The greater the number and the broader the representation of participants, the more defensible the ultimate plan. Brand emphasizes that the workshop format is more effective and attracts more attendance than most community meetings. Also, the community participation workshop can more readily adjust to serve the size of the group. "If they don't participate, they can't complain later" (Brand, 71). In San Francisco, Vancouver, Sydney and Newcastle the use of community workshops was extremely effective in ensuring that the community became a part of not only the planning and approval process but also the design component.The City West Development Corporation (CWDC)  220 has developed a strong community participation program to ensure the success of its redevelopment with the least disruption to the existing community. At the heart of the strategy is the organization of focus workshops and community meetings to discuss the master plans.The program involves personal contact with community groups and individuals, the developers and investors. The Corporation believes that "good community relations will be a positive force in the Corporation's marketing efforts in defining the vision, achieving public awareness and creating certainty for developers and their developments" (CWDC, City West Annual Report 92-93, 18). Richard Clark of CWDC stated: "the need to consult community groups has created a major time delay but has achieved greater acceptance of proposals and some worthwhile changes." In Pacific Place public involvement was targeted to meet three "publics" — the neighbouring community, special interest groups and the general public. The program involved a variety of means including a regular newsletter, public meetings, workshops, surveys, community meetings, submission of briefs and formal public hearings. Public participation involved over 25,000 citizens and some 170 public presentations and workshops. In Mission Bay participation in the process included a team of 11 consulting firms, over 100 citizen groups and the landowner (Bash, 65). To ensure that information was circulated within the community EDAW, created an information network called the Mission Bay Clearing House. The network consisted of 40 participating community organizations working with the City Planning Department on the public participation process. EDAW also established an information network involving over 2,000 organizations, agencies and individuals. Community groups were involved in setting the work program, selecting the consultant, preparing the objectives and policy statement, drafting the plan, and in examining the Environmental Impact Report. At one point, over a three month period, 24 public hearings were held on the project. The City's goal was to provide enough information about Mission Bay so that the community could understand what could be accomplished  221 and what was not possible. "The more citizen activists understood about the project, the more realistic they would be in their demands and expectations and the more creative solutions could be found" (Bash, Mission Bay, 1992, 26). In Newcastle the planning process is a collaborative effort that involved participation from business, community interest groups, the local community and Newcastle City Council. Over 20,000 information brochures were mailed out and over 150 public briefings have been held, attended by over 10,000 residents. Displays of the development have been held in over 20 different venues throughout the Hunter region and attracted thousands of concerned citizens. 3) Expertise - Brand states that in community participation the experts are the community members and the community is the professional's client during the workshop. However, the most complex, most important, and often most difficult role, is that of the workshop facilitator who is often a planner. Conducting, facilitating and leading the workshop is a demanding task requiring special skills and professionalism. Communication is the key element of this process. The inability to communicate effectively can often create an emotional situation where none should exist. In many projects a simple misunderstanding of the developer's intention creates strong community opposition. In Vancouver, to avoid misunderstandings, the process involves teams of city planners and developers working their way jointly through numerous public meetings to shape development guidelines. Only once this preliminary framework has been accepted by City Council can the developers begin preparing specific land use targets. These, too, have to pass through public meetings and hearings before an Official Development Plan can be approved. In San Francisco, after years of frustration, the developer, instead of hiring planner after planner just to have his ideas shot down by city, handed the planning process over to the City (Shafroth, 12). The City then hired ED AW Inc., one of the largest land-use planning and design firms  222 in the United States. EDAW operated under the direction of the City Planning Department and its function was to integrate and coordinate the planning process. In Sydney to foster a cooperative working relationship with the community, the CWDC formed an association with community representatives and special interest groups. The Corporation also involved other government departments and professional associations and encouraged opinions that could be incorporated into the master plan before exhibition. The Corporation has also extensively involved the media throughout the process. This was especially critical during debate over the casino, hotel and entertainment centre. Through such intensive involvement of the community and effective communication, the Corporation was able to reverse community criticism of the casino development (CWDC, City West Annual Report 92-93, 18). 4) Design - Design is an essential link in the workshop between the participants' verbal ideas and implementation mechanisms and serves to clarify their goals. The completion of a design is essential for the planner and designer to understand what the community wants: "The best creative engineering and urban designs will not deliver project reality. Fine design and a sensitive public process is the winning combination" (Samperai, 53). In Mission Bay each Tuesday during the design process, the consultant's design studio was opened for two hours for citizens' review of the most recent plans. During these meetings the concerned citizens could learn how the plan's elements were interconnected and the planning and design team could respond to public concerns about details they might otherwise have missed. To ensure that the community had a say into what the future of Honeysuckle would look like, the HDC held a "Community Ideas" competition. This competition was followed by a "Professional Ideas" competition jointly sponsored by the Honeysuckle Development Corporation and the Newcastle City Council. The best entries of the competitions were incorporated into the design guidelines (NSW PSG, The Winner Is, 5).  223 5) Economics - The community must be made aware of the economic reality of their recommendations and the ability of the private sector to provide the public benefits needed. At a public meeting for Mission Bay, when the special interest groups added up their demands, they figured out that the developer would need 1,200 acres rather than the actual 313 acres in order to meet all of their demands (Shafroth, 12). 6) Structure - The community participation process must be structured so that it results in decisions that can be carried out. The workshop format is designed for community participants to come up with a final product. The product is in the form of a project design that includes the community's goals and recommendations for effectively carrying out the project. Besides countless meetings, reviews, and public hearings, EDAW held a two-day workshop to explore the consultant's plans and to develop alternative plans. There is no doubt that each of these six principles has played a significant role in the community participation process in each of the case studies. Those projects that did not follow these six principles often encountered significant delays because of community objections. Samperai sums up the community planning process in this very effective analogy: Waterfront development reminds me of the ancient mariners who risked their way throughout the world, in and out of unknown harbours, in raging storm and dead calm alike, without the benefit of charts or real knowledge of what lay ahead, but they pressed on with imagination and courage only to find that success did not necessarily go to the swiftest, but to the best navigator (Samperai, 53) When the Mission Bay project was finally approved on January 7, 1991 the planning process had taken almost a decade, occupied three separate teams of planners, countless attorneys and consultants, and cost millions of dollars. The process cost $5 million and was born entirely by the developer. The original timetable called for an 18 month planning period beginning in 1984. This has turned into seven years. The key to the plan's success was "that members of the public/private  224 planning team felt an affinity for each other that was parleyed into an ultimate agreement" (Porter, 30). Christopher Dengenhardt, president of EDAW, wrote: This is the most extensive citizen participation program that I have witnessed. It was unusual in that it was an 'outreach' program honestly seeking input from the very beginning. . . . The end result is that many of the ideas in the plan originated from the community, the community has a sense of ownership, and there is a true majority support for the plan" (Dengenhardt, 7). EDAW identified four criteria crucial to making a project of this magnitude and complexity successful (Bash, 68): 1) Enlightened public and private sectors involved in negotiating both process and plan, with all parties anticipating and respecting the agenda of others. 2) A sincerely interested public, operating based on economic realities, not Utopian ideals. 3) Participants educated to recognize the evolutionary and reiterative nature of urban design problemsolving. 4) Participants who gain a realistic perception of the project's scope during early planning stages. In Vancouver, the community participation process the City created is designed to involve the public from the ground up. The cost of this lengthy process, unlike that of Mission Bay, is shared between the City and the developer (Cox, A l l ) . Critics of this new system allege that the politicians' minds are already made up and that the major decisions are being made behind closed doors before the public gets an opportunity to voice its concerns at the public hearings. In reality, the City briefs the developers on its guidelines and policies and specifies what community benefits the developer must provide in the design — without qualification. Jim Cox, Director of Planning for Coal Harbour, states of the new cooperative planning process: "The real bottom line is that the planning process is making Vancouver the kind of place that the public, not the planners or the developers want for the future" (Cox, A l l ) . So influential has the public been that the original design was never approved. This resulted from not including the public in the original development proposals for the site. The  225 developer submitted these proposals as part of the bid for the purchase of the site. At this point the City was not involved in the negotiations and it was a closed process between the provincial government's Crown Corporation, B. C. Place Developments, and the potential developers. The redevelopment of the World Expo 88 site in Brisbane serves to highlight what can go wrong if the public is not consulted from the very beginning of the development process. Similar to the sale of the Expo 86 site in Vancouver, the state government of Queensland held a competition for the development of the Expo 88 site. Without any public participation, and in a secret tendering process, the government awarded the development to a consortium of investors, all of whom had close ties with the state government. So loud was the public outcry over the decision, the lack of public participation and the proposed plan, that not only was the plan totally rejected but the state government was forced to recall tenders — one sympathetic to community needs (Franklin, 9). In the final analysis the process failed because of government interference. The state government wanted to dispose of the property as quickly as possible. This was the overriding factor because the profits from the sale of the property were to go to pay down the debts from Expo 88 and the longer it took, the greater the interest bill (Rodgers, 10). Government interference was also the reason for the quick sale of the Expo 86 site in Vancouver. The original plan failed because there was no municipal or community involvement in developing the plans. The major difference in the Vancouver case was that once the deal for the sale was completed there was no more interference by the provincial government and it became a local development. Craik writes in The Politics of Expositions: The politics of Expo 88 have borne an uncanny resemblance to those of Expo 86 and, no doubt of earlier expositions. The apparently specific and idiosyncratic concerns of local community groups adjacent to each exposition site have international parallels. . . . In this process the role of public input has never been well established beyond reaction, opposition and intervention which may result in modifications of existing plans (Craik, 107).  226  From this discussion it is obvious that involving maximum public participation as early as possible in the planning process is essential. Community involvement must be maintained throughout the planning process. The community must be involved in all aspects of the project and informed of progress, problems and changes. Actions must demonstrate that citizens are being listened to and that their opinions are respected. They must be given the tools to make informed decisions, including funding and training. A working relationship based on trust and cooperation must be fostered throughout the process. The planning process must be an interactive one with free flowing information between the developer, government departments, crown corporations, and special interest groups. Coordination is essential if the development is to proceed smoothly. A system of regular meetings is required to ensure that the process is proceeding smoothly and not getting bogged down in needless circular arguments. Time lines must be established for all phases of community involvement in the review process. The planning department must accept that it is not going to reach all of the people, nor can it expect to satisfy all of the special interest groups. The planning department has to take control and assume the leadership role in the process. It must make timely decisions to ensure the process moves along. Continuous rounds of endless public hearings and community discussions cause project delays and escalates the development cost to the point where the project may no longer be economically viable. Delays can increase the cost of housing to the point where it is no longer affordable to the majority of the community. Needless delay also defers tax revenues and greatly needed public amenities. The development approval process is too long, cumbersome, and costly. The process must be streamlined and made more cost efficient and timely. Using the results from this study and others on waterfront development, objectives and community desires can clearly be defined. Once the goals and objectives of what the development should achieve are understood the process can be streamlined and the planning time reduced. A draft plan can then be developed for presentation to the public with a  227 higher degree of certainty that it will be approved. This process will avoid continual meetings and hearings and countless revisions to the plan. Whether the planning process is termed cooperative, interactive or collaborative, municipal governments can no longer be expected to bear the cost alone. Municipalities will have to develop innovative means of "paying" the bill. Whether the developer absorbs all of the cost , the cost is equitably divided, or consultants hired by the city and funded by the developer the days of the municipality going it alone are gone forever. The community has been awakened to the quality of life of their environment. It will no longer sit idly by and allow city and developers to shape communities. Community participation in the planning process has been shown to be essential if projects are to make it through the complex approval process with any chance of success. 4.8  Recommendations for the Pacific Rim This paper has outlined the immense difficulties associated with waterfront redevelopments. If  the conclusions and lessons of this study are well-founded, several courses of action may be suggested towards the improvement of that process. The following is a list of recommendations and requirements for the development of urban waterfronts: 1) Study the heritage of the waterfront. 2) Identify current and future urban and regional issues. 3) Develop goals and objectives based directly on the issues. 4) Develop a collaborative/interactive planning process. 5) Maximize community involvement at the earliest stage. 6) Develop a detailed management and control structure. 7) Establish clearly defined lines of communications. 8) Maximize public access and open space.  228 9) Provide a comprehensive package of community amenities. 10) Follow ecologically sustainable development principles. 4.9  Topics for Further Research  Since none of the developments have been completed yet and most will not be completed for 10 to 20 years, it is difficult to assess the claims of the developers and public supporters as to the economic, social and community benefits. Therefore, it is essential that follow-up evaluations be conducted at three to five year intervals. A second area requiring further study is the current process of conventional planning and how community participation is controlled. There is little doubt that the conventional planning and development process is too long and too expensive. This results in both additional costs and lost revenues to the developers and the public, and delays much needed economic social and community benefits. An independent study with the aim of either streamlining the current planning and development process or formulating new and innovative planning methods is required. The study should be comprehensive in its approach and not be limited by geographical constraints. It should involve planners, developers, architects and engineers, academics, community groups and various levels of government. As part of this study, a key area to examine is community participation which is essential to ensure that the development is not needlessly delayed or rejected outright. However, there must be limits. The task of involving the community is too time consuming and expensive and should be kept to a minimum. Not every community group need be surveyed or involved in the process. It is only necessary to ensure that a representative sample is involved. A detailed study of the community participation process is required to determine if the years spent involving the community is not only cost effective but results in a better product. There is a point where diminishing returns are reached and further community involvement is counter productive. The possibility exists that by including the community to such an extent the planning department is avoiding making the decisions it  229 has been established to make. The question should be asked, is the planning department simply training the community in the planning process at the developer's expense? In addition, of what value are the endless focus groups, study sessions, and cherettes? These forums certainly benefit and empower the citizen groups and justify the planner's profession, but how much is enough and who should pay? Could the same results be achieved without the hundreds of community meetings and focus groups by using the planning department and existing review committees? Third, there are several reasons given for government investment in infrastructure and provision of development incentives and community facilities. These include: 1) revenues generated from the sale of small parcels of serviced, developable land will cover the costs and generate funds for community facilities not paid for by the developer, 2) without government commitment development would not happen or would take much longer to develop, 3) the scale of the development is so vast that it is unlikely that any one developer could afford to undertake such a development, 4) economic direct and indirect benefits, and 5) the additional community benefits justify the investment. Tweedale argues that, in fact, the public is massively subsidizing private developers. Yet in Australia and Japan this is the preferred method of development. Further study is required to determine if the economic benefits to the community outweigh the costs to the public or if, as is the case in San Francisco and Vancouver, the costs should be passed on to the developer. If developers are afraid to get involved because of cost and image, why are the developments in Vancouver and San Francisco being fully paid for by the developers? Is there a need for the government to fund community facilities or should these costs be passed on to the developer? Fourth, during this study two methods of developing surplus government lands were observed. The first was in Australia and Japan where senior levels of government maintained control of the development process through Crown Corporations. The overall intent was to provide the necessary infrastructure and subdivide the property for sale in developable serviced parcels. The assumption was  230 that the sale of smaller parcels of serviced property allows for getting the best price for the land, accounting for fluctuations in the real estate market. Studies for City West indicated that over the 30 year development period there would be a positive overall return on direct disposal, increasing significantly with "value adding" which excludes revenues from land tax. The second method was used by the provincial government of British Columbia. In this case the government opted to sell the lands unserviced, as one parcel, and leave the development process in the hands of the municipal government. It was clear, though, that the price obtained for the sale was well below market value and significantly less than what could have been attained had the government maintained control and sold smaller parcels over a longer period of time: The taxpayers of British Columbia stand to lose millions of dollars. . . . Selling the entire site to a single developer will allow the new owner to dictate how and when the land is parceled off into smaller parcels reaping enormous profits at the expense of the taxpayer. . . . The province is going to leave at least $100 million on the table by not acting as their own developer (Realtors question). A study to determine the true value that the government receives for selling serviced land in smaller developable lots as opposed to selling unserviced land is required. An integral part of the study must be a detailed examination of all of the costs the government must absorb in providing not only serviced land but community benefits such as parks, roads, walkways and cycle paths, shoreline improvements, community centres and recreation facilities. Further, to what degree should the government add value in disposing of its assets? Adding value will certainly maximize potential returns but needs to be balanced against financial exposure. Increased financial benefits are not the only advantage the government cites for maintaining control of the development process. By maintaining control of the overall development process, the government ensures an integrated phased development that will better meet the urban and regional goals. The question must be asked, can this objective not be attained just as effectively if the process were in the hands of the municipal governments? By having senior levels Of government involved  231 does this needlessly complicate the process or does it improve efficiency? Will local community needs be compromised for the "greater good"? Fifth, there is no question that social and affordable housing is required within communities; however, there is no substantive evidence to support the argument that this housing must be built on the most valuable development property in the city. A detailed study that examines all factors including highest and best use of the property, available funding, construction costs, property costs, location analysis, need, employment opportunities, forgone tax revenues, shopping facilities and social support services must be undertaken to provide options and recommend the optimal solution. The question yet to be resolved is, so long as the waterfront itself is open to the public and so long as there are adequate parks, open space and recreation facilities available to the public, does it matter what the income level or residential mix is? Is it more important to provide the maximum number of social housing units to alleviate the social housing shortage as quickly as possible using developer funds, or is it more important to provide a few elite social housing units for the few lucky enough to obtain them at some time in the future when provincial or social housing resources become available? Why not use cash contributions from developers to construct social housing now and where it is most needed? A final area that requires further study is the issue of waterfront gambling. Legalized gambling is spreading across the Pacific Rim, and as more cities begin to view gambling as a quick fix for ailing economies, the pressure mounts If you don't let us build casinos here, the developers argue, all the jobs and tourists will go to a city that does and you'll get nothing. David Johnston, in Temples of Chance, predicts that by the end of the decade half of the states will have legal casinos and no major city will be more than two hours away from one. Most major cities will likely have their own casino of some sort (Breen and Rigby, "Gambling," 1). Countless article have been written on gambling in general but little on the effects large multi-functional gambling complexes would have  232 on the vibrancy of the waterfront. Some of the questions to be resolved are: what are the social and economic impacts on the community? What are the urban design and planning implications? What will the effect on tourism be? What would the effect on inner-city affordable housing be? How would existing charitable gaming be affected? How would revenues be shared between the local community and senior levels of government?  233 NOTES 1.  Since 1940 vessel size has increased by 500% to 1800% which has necessitated vastly deeper berths (Burke, 206).  2. The typical amount of space required is 12-16 ha. per ship berth, ten times more than that required for the conventional cargo terminal. 3. Cargo handling times were reduced from 55% to 21% while capitol costs increased from 17% to 33% as a proportion of overall costs (Chilcote, 130). 4.  The controversy over the infilling necessitated the creation of the Board of State Harbour Commissioners which was given  control over the harbour installations of the city (Scott, 28). 5. As inducement to establish the terminus here the CPR was granted nearly six thousand acres of land in and around what was to become the new City of Vancouver. 6. Due to the increased shipping traffic and needed improvements to port facilities a three man Harbour Commission was established in 1913. Its mandate was to control all harbour land and foreshore and to take responsibility for supervising and regulating shipping and navigation in Burrard inlet, English Bay, and False Creek. 7. Background information was provided by the City of Brisbane Office of Economic Development (OED) and Brisbane: Growth City of Australia. OED; Brisbane: Business. OED; Brisbane: Facts, OED; Liveable Brisbane. Brisbane City Council, 1993; Brisbane. Brisbane City Council; and Brisbane: A Total Port. Port of Brisbane Authority. 8. The result is the process of gentrification as older housing stock near the inner city is refurbished thereby depleting the affordable housing stock and forcing the less affluent residents out in some cases onto the street (Ley, 181). 9. The Building Better Cities program will provide a greater choice of housing in terms of types, tenure, densities and affordability. This is particularly pertinent to urban redevelopment of inner city land which will be subject to market forces. Where redevelopment schemes involve government funding or joint ventures with governments there is an obligation to ensure that the range of income groups have access to affordable housing in the area. (Howe, 6). 10. The land is currently owned by the Maritime Services Board (MSB), NSW State Rail Authority (SRA), State Transit Authority, Public Works Department and Commonwealth (Federal) Government. 11. Between 1971-1991 the Newcastle CBD lost 20,000 sq m (215,000 sf) of retail floor space, employment dropped 14%, population dropped by 10,000 and the workforce diminished by 7,000. 12. Over 20,000 brochures, fact sheets and information kits were distributed, over 200 written submissions werereceived,displays were set up throughout the Hunter Region and over 150 public briefings were given which were attended by over 10,000 people. 13. The Honeysuckle Concept Masterplan has received two awards for excellence. In November 1992 it won the New South Wales division award for Excellence in planning and in March 1993 the prestigious Royal Australian Planning Institute (RAPI) national award in the category of Planning and Development (HDC Annual Report, 7). 14.  An average of 75%-85% of therespondentsare in favour of the mix of land uses proposed.  15.  The Corporation has a seven member board that is responsible to the Minister for Housing and the Minister for Planning.  16. The Building Better Cities program aims to demonstrate ways of creating a better urban environment for Australians; to bring about change in the way cities are shaped; to improve the physical context in which work, housing, transport and services are provided; and to invest in ecologically sustainable development. The program is a cooperative effort between all levels of government - Commonwealth, State and Local and the private sector in order to improve cities and the way they are planned and developed. It seeks to tie together all aspects of the urban development process. Funding which is provided by the Federal and State  234 governments must be used to: provide affordable housing; improve access to local services and schools; provide better job opportunities; provide increased open space and recreation opportunities; improve public transport; and upgrading of essential infrastructure. The program will contribute $A520 million over four years (1992-1996) to fund the New South Wales strategies ( Speech notes for the Honourable Brian Howe, MP, Deputy Prime Minister for Health Housing and Community Services, BBC Luncheon 24 September 1992). 17.  $A70 million from the Federal government and $A30 million from the State government over four years (1992-1996).  18. Funds were allocated for restoration of heritage structures, construction of 15 elderly housing units, reclamation of 4 ha (10 ac) of waterfront for a foreshore park, new moorings for commercial fishing boats, construction of a new wharf, seawall stabilization, and construction of a new bridge, dredging, restoration of the 1906 Wickham School for residential use, extensive landscaping and road repairs, on-going relocation of the Ports General Cargo Operations, and restoration of wharf areas. 19. The Hunter Valley Research Foundation estimates the project will generate an annual average of 300 direct jobs or 18,500 jobs over the 20 year construction and expansion period. 12,000 of those would be people employed directly in businesses associated with the project and the other 6,500 would be generated indirectly. It is estimated that A$l billion will be spent by private and public sectors during the life of the project generating an average A$110 million per year in indirect expenditures in the region. In total the project will generate approximately 37,000 person years of employment over its construction life. State taxreceiptsare estimated to be $17.2 million annually from direct and indirect effects. 20. Among the international companies operating in the financial sector 150 have their headquarters in Sydney and of those 50 have branch offices in other Australian cities. Financial establishments in Sydney come from 29 countries - 48 from Japan alone. In all more than two-thirds of the foreign banks operating in Australia, and 80% of the merchant banks and finance companies have their headquarters in Sydney. 21. The NSW state government favours Urban Consolidation as a method ofreducingservicing costs and making more efficient use of community services. A recent study by the NSW government indicated that urban consolidation could save the state government between A$8,000 and $14,000 per dwelling in servicing costs. The Metropolitan Strategy's preferred plan for Sydney incorporates a significant degree of urban consolidation allowing construction of 9,000 multi-unit dwellings per year. Urban consolidation is also seen as a means of redressing the imbalance between housing and jobs in the inner-city where inner suburbs have 70% of the employment and 48% of the population. This imbalance results in a considerable waste in travel time and energy and is a significant contributor to air pollution (RES, 9). 22. The population split for the four precincts is:Ultimo-Pyrmont 16500 and up to 9000 dwellings, Eveleigh 1700 and the Bays 9700. 23. The CWDC has established a City West Housing Company which will be the vehicle for the implementation of the programme. The company will provide rental housing for a range of income and special needs groups. 24. The City West Urban Strategy was prepared by the State Department of Planning for the various state government agencies. Advising the Department is an intergovernmental task force which is chaired by the Department of State Development. Advice is also provided by an Urban Design Committee Planning and a Planning Advisory Committee comprised of local government, professional, community and businessrepresentatives.In 1989 a Cabinet subcommittee was appointed to oversee the City West project. 25. Membership in the City West Planning and Advisory Committee was also revised so that local government and community representatives now form a majority in the committee. 26. Master Plans are an essential stage in the planning process between the Regional Environmental Plan (REP) and development application. It is not a development application and adoption of the Master Plan does not imply consent for any development. They must be adopted by the Minister for Planning before development consent can be granted. A Master Plan expires after two years unless the owner of the land extends the term which cannot be extended for more than 12 months at a time and approved by the minister. 27. There is also arequirementfor a Master Plan for sites in excess of 10,000 sq m or development proposals that involve more than one site.  235 28. The CWDC is managing all remedial work on contaminated lands. Any adverse environmental factors will be mitigated as part of redevelopment to achieve high-quality environments. CWDC is responsible for: diverting discharge away from the harbour; installing pollution control traps on storm water lines and undertaking studies for waste-water and sewage recycling, use of solar energy and methods to exclude toxic materials and ozone depleting chemicals (CWDC Briefing Issue 2, Oct 93). 29.  The commonwealth will provide $117 million and the State $124 million.  30.  The employment split for the four precincts is : Eveleigh 3,300, Central 20,500, Ultimo-Pyrmont 54,000, and the Bays 8,800.  31. Items to be preserved include: the Old Locomotive Workshops which will become a museum of technology, displaying old and new technology and rail history; the managers office, administrative building, chief engineers office, Redfern station and the New Engine Shop which will become the National Innovation Centre. 32. The ATP (Sydney) Ltd will be responsible for operating the ATP, leasing the land, marketing the concept to developers and prospective tenants/investors and encouraging links between the participating universities and industry. Three universities will participate in establishing a research base at the ATP. Each of the vice-chancellors sits on the seven member board of directors for the ATP. Industry and other research bodies will also become involved in multi-disciplinary joint research projects.. The ATP is intended to help NSW gain a competitive edge for research based high technology industries of the future.The aim of the ATP is to develop the latest technology through the joint efforts of research and industry, then move them out to industry throughout Australia for further development and manufacture (NSW Dept. of Planning, BBC Newsletter, No. 3, Feb. 94). 33.  The population for the greater Tokyo metropolitan region is 35 million residents or 27% of Japans total population.  34. Minimum standards of 50 sq m (538 sf) lots or three room apartments for a four member household were established by the Japanese government in 1985. As of 1985 the average floor space per household in Yokohama is 82 sq m (883 sf) which puts it eighth out of Japans eleven largest cities. Yokohama ranks first in ownership at 54.6%. 35. In 1988 it took an average of Y53 million or the equivalent of 8.4 years of the median annual personal income to purchase a condominium in a suburb of Tokyo within a ninety minute commute from the city centre. 36. The Yokohama Portside District adjacent to MM21 will accommodate the bulk of the residential population The district is being developed as an "Art and Design Town" and calls for concentrating cultural and artistic facilities to create a high quality urban and residential environment. The major objective of the development which began in 1985 is the supply of urban housing with 1800 households and a projected population of 6500 . 37. The transit centres are being designed as city-sub-centres with the hope that collective improvements of all of the functions at these locations will enable them to supplement the downtown area. Imporovements include creation of plazas in front of stations, construction of bus terminals, improvement of sidewalks and roads, creation of pedestrian areas, construction of multi-functional buildings for commercial use, high density land use, and promotion of joint use (Sugawara, 239). This policy is not unlike Vancouver's policy for development around the sky train stations and the Regional Town Centre policy. 38. Transportation improvements included construction of a new subway system; construction of a highway system; and the completion of the 860 m (2821 ft) Yokohama Bay Bridge. It has the worlds largest centre span for cable-stayed bridges of 469 m (1539 ft). It carries six lanes of traffic in each direction and has a two story observation lounge. The bridge will be incorporated into the Yokohama Express Bayside Line and the Tokyo Bay Shore Road to eventually encircle Tokyo Bay (Masaki, 211). 39.  This concept is similar to Newcastle's objective to decentralize government services from Sydney.  40. The aim of the teleport plan is to connect Yokohama directly with major cities around the world. The intent is to make Yokohama a centre for knowledge intensive, high-technology, research and development. It will become a centre for international business operating from intelligent buildings linked to business and financial capitals of the world. Businesses will be able to access information around the world via satellite communications, Interactive Visual Information Systems and a Data Base Information System.  236 41.  Yokohama in 1985 became affiliated with a sister teleport in the Bay Area of San Francisco.  42. Yokohama intends to build a new city centre suitable for the twenty-first century. Minato Mirai 21 symbolizes the future role the port will play in the new city centre, minato means port and mirai means future (Kato, 234). 43. The Yokohama Exotic Showcase was held in 1989 the 130 anniversary of the opening of the Port of Yokohama and the centennial of the incorporation of Yokohama as a city. YES 89 was held on the newly reclaimed land for the Minato Mirai 21 project. The exposition was based on the theme of "Space and Children" and was concerned with lifestyles in society of the future (Kato, 234). 44. The HUDC carries out "Specific Urban Renewal Projects" upon request from the prefectural government (municipalities) and local cities. In the case of MM21 the HUDC is carrying out the development upon the request if the Kanagawa prefecture and the City of Yokohama. The HUDC is not limited to construction of housing but underrevisionsto the Land Readjustment Act and Urban Renewal Act can promote urban renewal through the construction of commercial and business centres. 45. The agreement covers such elements as landscaping, skyline, street scenery, scale of construction sites, building heights and setbacks diaster prevention and impact on surrounding areas. 46. Within each zone minimum site scale limitations were imposed, "to promote efficient land use and ensure appropriate urban environments [and] the liveliness of the town" (Yokohama MM21 Corp. Basic Agreement, 14). 47. The five development themes for MM21 are 1) create an integrated information based urban community, 2) create a new image as a unique coastal urban core that functions as a gateway to the world, where the sea and port atmosphere can be "felt", 3) create a lively town with emphasis on the provision of continuous space for walking and relaxing, 4) combine urban functions with a unique style and simple harmony, 5) create a town with a comfortable and convenient lifestyle by emphasizing advanced technologies (Yokohama MM21 Corp, Basic Agreement. 10). 48. The National Auditorium design for example resembles a sea-shell. The interior of the hall will be decorated with curved ceilings reflecting the ocean waves. A glassed-in five storey galleria will provide a dramatic panoramic view of the harbour and Bay Bridge. The 31 floor Inter-Continental Hotel has been designed to represent a sail and faces out to sea offering most rooms panoramic views of the harbour city and Mt. Fuji. 49. Information on MM21 was provided by the Yokohama Minato Mirai 21 Corporation in MM21 Information Bulletin 1991, 1992, 1993; The Housing and Urban Development Corporation in MM21 Information Bulletin. March 1993, and T.R.Y 90 Associates in Bock 24 Information Bulletin. 1994 and Block 24 Marketing Brochure 1994. 50. Scheduled for completion in 1997 the development is based on three principles: it is to be a creative information-intensive community; it will be an open cosmopolitan development; and it will serve as a humanistic home form arts and culture. The development is based on the dual themes of "sustenance" and "entertainment". In order to create a business district which will represent Yokohama the entire block will be developed as a unified design. 51.  There are more than 60 million sq ft of offices concentrated in 2 square miles.  52.  The Port includes: more than 1000 acres of land, 11 terminals and 40 berths.  53.  Data was provided by the San Francisco Mayor's Office of Business and Economic Development.  54. Affordable rental units will vary from $360 for a studio to $547-908 for a four bedroom. Affordable units for sale would vary in price from $40,000 for a studio to a maximum of $130,000 for a four bedroom. Affordable housing will be priced for entry level workers and would be designed for families needing three or more bedrooms. Minimum and maximum wage levels to qualify would vary from 50% to 150% of median income or $15,000 for a one person household to $58,000 for a household of five or more. About 150 units will provide artist live-work space with at least 50 units affordable to low-income artists Market rate units would sell for $100,000-$300,000 (1990) (San Francisco Dept of Planning, Mission Bay Proposal. 4).  237 55. To ensure that affordable housing is built the developer must cede to the city two acres for affordable housing every four years and pay $2 million for affordable housing at the start of construction and another $2 million on receiving the first office building permit. 56. The Association of Bay Area Governments has established goals that jurisdictions accommodate half the new workers who might otherwise be expected to commute and provide enough housing to allow a 5% vacancy rate. Applying these standards to Mission Bay workers would result in a City housing demand of 7500 units still a housing surplus for the City within Mission Bay. 57. Catellus will initially contribute $2.5 million to a Mission Bay Economic Development Fund and provide $9.6 to $11.4 million to implement the program. The amount can go up or down depending upon the developers success at meeting specified goals for minority's and women owned business participation. 58. The Peninsula Commute Service is a regional heavy rail transit service which extends down the peninsula to "Silicon valley" and San Jose. Currently the service is operated by Caltrans under an agreement with the Southern Pacific Transportation Company. Caltrans anticipates turning the service over to a joint powers authority consisting of San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties (San Francisco Dept. of Planning, Plan for Citizen Review 3-7). 59.  This will involve negotiations with the City, Santa Fe Railway and the Caltrans Authority, the California Transportation  Commission, Public Utilities and the Federal Urban Mass Transportation Authority. 60. At build-out at least 53% of employees are expected to commute daily by public transit and 15% byride-sharing.Modal split goals for commuter service are 68% transit 18%ride-shareand 1.4 persons per auto. 61. The City and the port concluded from the Container Terminal Options special study that a consolidated terminal facility: offered the port significant advantages for expansion; would achieve greater operational efficiencies through sharing of container equipment, back land and other facilities; no loss in cargo capacity; new interstate ramps; and the port would save $25 to $30 million in construction and operating costs. The consolidated terminal could achieve a cargo throughput capacity virtually equal to the cargo now handled by all Bay Area container terminals. San Francisco by modernizing and adding the consolidated facility could handle about one and one-half times the cargo now going into all bay area Ports (San Francisco Dept. of Planning Proposal for Citizen Review, 3-6). 62. In a complex land transfer arrangement the Port will exchange 15 acres of land on the Mission Bay waterfront for the 35 acre Western Pacific Yards the developer owns next to the Port's major container facility. The Port will lease another 22 acres of land to the developer for $2 million annually for 30 years which will become part of the Mission Bay park system. Port piers adjacent to the development will be retained for maritime use with six acres of adjacent land used for transportation and storage (San Francisco Dept. of Planning Mission Bay Proposal, 11). 63. The Port holds land in trust for the people of the State of California, and must restrict land uses to those serving maritime commerce, navigation open space and related public purposes. The State Land Commission has oversight authority to ensure that such lands are used in a manner consistent with the public trust. Such lands cannot be sold or exchanged with other properties unless (1) there was no public trust purpose for the lands to be given up, and (2) the transaction adds equal value to the public trust. The State Lands Commission and/or the State Legislature has to approve any such transaction (Bash: Mission Bay (1992), 312). 64. The regulatory process to accomplish this was extremely complex. A regional agency the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)is responsible for the San Francisco Bay Plan, the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan and the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan. 65. The developer will provide the city a $30 million financial assurance to assure that the site remediation will be carried out to completion. 66.  Catellus even funded a Mission Bay Library containing technical information on master plans and zoning.  67. The California Environmental Quality Act (1970) requires that governmental agencies prepare a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prior to approval of any projects that could have a significant effect on the environment and respond in writing to all public comments on the report before making the report final.  238 The EIR added to public understanding of the Mission Bay site and proposed plans. It helped planners decide on a final mix between housing and jobs that would give a surplus of affordable housing units to workers expected within the new Mission Bay commercial development. It projected the need for community facilities, assisted in the design of the transportation network and gave critical answers to what the impact would be on neighbouring areas. It demonstrated that regional transportation impacts were minimal.. .and it provided the City important information in determining what was needed from the developer for toxic materials investigation and remedial plans (Bash: Mission Bay (1992), 28). 68. The 20 special studies included: Container Terminal Options, Noise Buffering, Public Transportation Network, Retail Demand, Housing, Jobs, Wetlands, Canal System, Soil, Seismic Safety, Sewage and Economic feasibility. 69. The initial Mission Bay proposals were by the Southern Pacific Company, a major railroad which in 1984 merged with another railroad the Atchison.Topeka and Santa Fe company which owned virtually all remaining privately owned land in Mission Bay. TheresultingSanta Fe Pacific Corporation created a single land company, the Santa Fe Realty Corporation, which held title to the combined Mission Bay lands and sought to develop the site. In 1990 Santa Fe Pacific Corporation renamed and spun off the development company, Catellus Development Corporation (Bash 1992, 2). 70. The City Planning Commission is appointed by the Mayor of San Francisco as the policy and decision-making body of the Department of City planning. The Planning Commission recommends City Planning Code (Zoning Code) amendments, and has sole authority over the City Master Plan, of which the Mission Bay Plan is a part. San Francisco has an elected Board of Supervisors who function much like a city council and must approve all amendments to the City planning Code and any contractual documents such as the Mission Bay Development Agreement (DA) (Bash: Mission Bay (1992), 31). 71. One of the main reasons why the development has not started is because of the inflexibility and stringent provisions in the DA. The provision of community benefits and housing are tied so closely to the development of commercial and industrial property that there is little room for the developer to manoeuvre. In addition to the high up-front costs for environmental clean-up and infrastructure upgrading combined with a downturn in the real estate market has prevented the development from starting. 72. The concept is to design two storey retail/service sector stores with narrow frontages of 25 feet and a depth of 60 feet thereby creating opportunities for numerous small entrepreneurial endeavours. Ground floor space will serve local and adjacent neighbourhoods while second floor space will be available for small offices and personal services such as doctors, dentist etc.. 73. Land use data was obtained from documents provided by the San Francisco Dept. of Planning including: Summary of Mission Bay Proposal Feb 21, 1991; Mission Bay Summary - Land Use Program, Feb 28, 1990; Mission Bay Plan for Adoption, Jan 1990; and Mission Bay - The Plan. 74. All background information was provided by the greater Vancouver Regional District Strategic Planning Department and Development Services Department. The two key documents were Greater Vancouver Key Facts: A Statistical Profile of Greater Vancouver Canada. 1993 and Vancouver Perspectives: A Business and Investment Guide to Greater Vancouver. Canada. 75. $145 million for the property and $175 million in interest revenue. Payments would be paid in increasing annual amounts beginning with a $50 million down payment and the balance between 1995 and 2003. The base price of $320 million could increase by up to $180 million if Concord gets the increases in densities it wants for the site. 76. The document states general development principles and public objectives as well as specific targets for areas such as the water basin and shoreline; walkways and open space; housing density, income mix and location; and office development. Areas where there are no specific targets are subject to the broadsheet principles. 77. In Pacific Place there will be 8500 units supporting a population of 14,000. In Coal Harbour there will be 2266 units supporting up to 3500 residents. The Bayshore Gardens will have a total of 980 residential units and a residential population of 1400.  239 78. Core-needy households are those which spend more than 30% of their gross income on a dwelling unit suited to their basic needs based on market rents. Low income and core-needy are approximately equivalent in terms of income but core-needy is a more useful definition because it ties together income, household types and market rents. 79. An early proposal for alternative funding was to have the City spend up to $20 million to purchase land for 2,000 housing units from the developers at Coal Harbour and Pacific Place. The money would have come out the City's property endowment fund in increments over a 10 year period. 1500 units would come from Pacific Place and 500 from Coal Harbour. The Federal and Provincial governments would then underwrite the cost of the subsidization through their non-profit social housing program. However, this plan depended entirely on Federal and Provincial government participation and was never adopted (Fayerman, "Mayor"). 80. The Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans is concerned with areas of potential filling of tidal ocean water and shoreline changes where fish habitat could be effected. In principle the Fisheries Department policy is to ensure no net loss in the productive capacity of existing, fish habitat. Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Cost Guard approval are required for any filling or shoreline changes (Vancouver Planning Dept: Coal Harbour Broadsheets. 7) 81. During the last 100 years the False Creek area was the industrial heart of Vancouver. Industrial activities included coal gasification plants which provided gas for town lighting; wood processing with over a dozen sawmills, planing mills, shingle mills and wood preserving operations; fuel storage and service stations; an electrical transformer construction and maintenance shop; a variety of factories and warehouses; and the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) rail yards, foundries and metal shops (B.C. Environment, RAPP, Vol. 1 No 1, 2). These activities left behind waste products of coal tar compounds, wood preservatives, metals, and petroleum products which were disposed of on-site as fill. In some places the fill was up to 43 feet deep (B.C. Environment, Soils of Pacific Place, Oct. 1991). 82. Theresultsof soils investigations are reviewed by two advisory committees. These committees consist of federal, provincial and municipal environmental and health authorities and academics from the University of British Columbia (BCE: Soils of Pacific Place. No 1 Oct 1991). 83. The most contaminated area is the site for the Andy Livingstone Park. This site historically was the site of the BC Electric Railway coal gasification plant and transformer repair and maintenance shop. As aresultthe area is unsuitable for residential use (BCE: RAPP Vol 1 No 1, 6-7) The remediation plan for this site is to seal off the contaminated soil by constructing: a barrier wall to block ground-water from entering False Creek; a water collection and treatment facility to treat contaminated water; and a surface cap to block rain and irrigation water. Special ventilation will allow gases percolating to the surface to be dispersed through lamp standards. A preliminary investigation indicated that the traditional method or soilremovalandremediationwould have cost $105-$450 million. 84. To develop the necessary technology, six environmental companies were contracted to conduct tests on soil samples taken from pockets of industrial waste on the Pacific Place. A variety of technologies are being investigated including incineration, bioremediation, stabilization/solidification and low temperature thermal extraction (BCE: Soils of Pacific Place No 5, Oct 1991) A portion of the cost is being shared by BC Environment and Environment Canada as part of the five year National Contaminated Sites Remediation program. 85. The service road will be located on a lower level below the primary pedestrian environment. It will allow access to vehicles servicing the retail pier, the hotels, office towers, as well as the charter and float plane operations. 86. In the case of Pacific Place the cost of the ODP application processing was $560,000 for which the City received $122,000. Cost of CD-I processing is estimated at $3,240,000 withrevenuesof $184,000. The city planning process for Pacific Place will cost the city $243,000 annually for additional staffing. In Coal Harbour the cost of the ODP processing is $270,000 with total revenues of $80,000. The cost of processing the CD-I applications is estimated at $1,314,000 withrevenuesof $60,000. It will also cost the City an additional $80,000 to ensure that adequate public consultation occurs. 87. Concord Pacific paid $100,000, Marathon $55,000 and the Bayshore Gardens $75,000 towards the cost of the planning process.  240 88. This plan was substantially altered in 1989 during the development process and community hearings and workshops. The main issues centred over concerns of elitism, maintenance of the lagoons, safety and how the concept did not fit in with the existing urban fabric. 89. Five pubic meetings, six one-half day workshops with special interest groups, numerous briefs were submitted, and two evening open council meetings followed. 90. The program also proposed surveying families with young children and adults living in high density housing to evaluate liveability criteria being considered for Pacific Place and to assess housing design. However there were not enough units occupied to test the new guidelines. 91. The Official Development Plan provides the overall framework for the development of the site. It sets out the broad patterns for the components such as land uses, parks, streets, walkways, densities, heights, the shoreline treatment, and view corridors. Approval of the ODP does not include zoning approval or provide for development permits, this will come when the sub-area (neighbourhood) development plans are submitted for rezoning into Comprehensive Development Zones (CDs). CDs are prepared to cover specific development sites. CD's take the ODP's one step further in terms of the detail level of the development. They represent a 'snapshot' of a part of a site showing how it will appear once construction is complete. Following City approval of the sub-area development plans and rezoning to CD zones the land owner can then apply for a Development Permit (DP) followed by the Building Permits which allows construction to begin. The incremental phasing allows time to evaluate each neighbourhood as it is designed and to respond to changing city needs and market demand (Vancouver Planning Dept. False Creek Newsletter Vol 1 No 4 Oct 1989). 92. Sites will be purchased by the city for less than market value and funds to build the social housing will be sought through existing government housing programs or from private community groups. 93. If approved a second hotel may be built as part of the Plaza of Nations. 94. Concord received $40 million for the Plaza of Nations site almost four times the value of the property in 1988. The sale recovered most of Concords $50 million down-payment for the land. The 35% interest in Concord Pacific was valued at $200 million (Hamilton, "Li"). 95.  Marathon Realty is the real estate arm of Canadian Pacific Railway.  96. The developer is required to provide 25% of the total number of dwelling units for families with small children. 20% of the units must also be available to core-needy households with at least 50% of these suitable for families. The developer was also provided a density bonus if he includedrentalunits no larger than 750 sq ft within the development. 97. These 'memory rails' have been designed to recall the site's historical claim as the 'end of the line' and its importance as a transportation hub linking the CP Rail Line with the historic Vancouver waterfront. 98. The building was purchased by the city for $1.9 million and then carefullyrefurbishedfor $2 million. The refurbishment maintained the Grand Classic Style architecture as well as the large square central tower. Facilities include a playground, daycare, fitness facilities and a 120 seat community room. 99. Therestorationof the the 1883 Divisional Engineers office was completed at a cost of $500,000 in July 1993 and it will now take on a new life as a commercial building.The historic Newcastle rail station will be redeveloped as a boutique and hotel with adaptive reuse of theremainingheritage railway buildings for various specialty retailing. 100. Some distinction should be made between goals, objectives and policies. For the purpose of this study the definitions used by Hodge in Planning Canadian Communities will be used. Hodge uses the following definitions: A "goal"refersto an ideal, a condition, or quality to be sought in the community's physical development. Thus, a goal in community planning expresses a desirable direction for progress. An "objective" is, by contrast, something that the community seeks to attain. It is like a target; it can be reached. A "policy" is the preferred course of action to achieve an objective or goal; it is the course of action the local government thinks will be acceptable to the diverse interests of  241 the community. The process of goals, objectives and policies represent the progressive translation of an idea or concept into operational targets (Hodge, 180). 101. In Vancouver the formal documents were called Policy Broadsheets or Statements; in Sydney the main policy documents were the Regional Environmental Plan, Precinct Planning Studies and Metropolitan Area Strategy; Brisbane used a Statement of Principles; San Francisco developed a Proposal for Citizen Review, Objectives and Policies Report, and Choices for Mission Bay; and in Yokohama the primary document was a Basic Agreement on Town Development. 102. In Pacific Place the public amenities are valued at $145 million, at Coal Harbour community benefits total $90 million, in San Francisco developer responsibility for public amenities and improvements total $250 million. 103. In fact this is not a new concept. The first Teleport was implemented by the Port of NY/NJ in 1987. The development consists of a220-acre interference-free telecommunications site on Staten Island. The US$87 million project will contain seventeen satellite dishes, a telecentre building that coordinates the transmission and reception of data (similar to the Yokohama International Operations Centre), and a 100-acre office park. 104. Three Universities - The University of New South Wales, The University of Sydney and The University of Technology Sydney - are participating in establishing a research base at the ATP. 105. Of such concern is this issue that The Waterfront Centre held panel discussions on waterfront gambling as part of their 1993 annual conference. As a follow up to that initial discussion the centre is sponsoring a workshop on the pros and cons of waterfront gambling March 12-14 1995 in Charleston, South Carolina. Sessions will include; Preparing for Possible Gambling Installations; Urban Design and Planning Implications of Waterfront Gambling Facilities; and various case studies including a proposal for New Orleans. 106. Terry Petras of Pacific Destination Resorts provided a list of no less than 17 different federal, provincial and municipal agencies that his firm had to submit plans to or seek approvals from in order to proceed with their hotel/marina complex at Chemainus B.C. None of these agencies coordinated their effort with the others and in more than one instance the developer would receive approval from one agency only to be turned down by another. 107.  This information was obtained through staff interviews with NSW State Department of Planning officials.  108. US federal government agencies include the National Research Council Maritime Administration; the Department of the Interior, notably through its Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service (Department of the Interior (US), 1979), Office of Water Resources Research, and through the Management (US Department of Commerce, 1980; Cowey, 1979). 109. There are four primary agencies that have jurisdiction in the Bay. First, the State Lands Commission owns all the waterfronts that the Port Authority administers. This ensures that the waterfront will not be privatized. Under its authority residential or general office uses are prohibited. Second, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) is a regional regulatory body that maintains substantial control over land uses along the shoreline, including the wetlands. The commission has developed a comprehensive planning process that maximizes public access to the shore-front and wetlands and controls infilling of the Bay. It exercises its power through administering permit applications for Bay shoreline developments. Some permits require developers to reclaim wetlands as a tradeoff for allowing landfill (Dept. of Commerce, 17). Third, the Port Authority is the one agency in San Francisco vested with the authority to make decisions about waterfront use. Its responsibility is to balance land-use demands. Finally, the City of San Francisco Planning Department has complete responsibility for zoning appropriate land use. 110. The corporations are directed by an appointed Board of Directors. The board reports through the chairman to the Minister of Planning. The work of the corporation is carried out under the direction of a managing Director and General Manager. 111.  To carry out its mission the corporation has a capitol budget of 1.1 billion yen.  112. The agreement can be amended or abolished with the concurrence of two thirds or more of all landowners if the aggregate of land owned by those consenting to the amendment amounts to two thirds or more of the total land (excluding roads parks and berths) in the Agreement area (MM21 Basic Agreement).  242 113. The proposal calls for twin five storey buildings with a combined net leasable area of 110,000 sf. Due to the continuing property market difficulties the state government legislated to allow leasehold buildings to be strata titled for 120 years. The strata titling allows for mixed uses within the buildings including residential. Each of the floors could be bought and sold by tenants in the first leasehold strata title development in Queensland. At the end of 120 years the land reverts to public ownership (Schloss, 19). 114. To provide the necessary infrastructure 7.3 km of service tunnels are being built beneath the city. The aim of these facilities is the effective use of roads and streets and to prevent re-digging of roads. The service tunnels will carry not only power lines, water and gas mains, but also waste disposal tubes and local air conditioning pipes (Kitamura & Tanaka, 197-198).  BIBLIOGRAPHY URBAN WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT GENERAL Bird, James. Seaport Gateways of Australia. London: Oxford University Press, 1968. Brand, Peter S. "Citizen Participation and Responsibility: Involving the Community in Planning and Design." In The Urban Edge. Eds. Joseph E. and Peter Grenell. Los Altos, CA: State Coastal Conservancy, 1985. 66-83. Breen, Ann, and Dick Rigby. Caution: Working Waterfront. Washington, D.C.: The Waterfront Press, 1985. . Designing Your Waterfront. Washington, D.C.: National League of Cities, 1981. . "Gambling on Gambling." Waterfront World Spotlight. Vol. 12 No. 2, Summer 1993. 7. , eds. Urban Waterfronts '84: Toward New Horizons. Washington, D.C.: The Waterfront Press, 1985. , eds. Urban Waterfronts '85: Water Makes A Difference. Washington, D.C.: The Waterfront Press, 1986. , eds. Urban Waterfronts '86: Developing Diversity. Washington, D.C.: The Waterfront Press, 1987. , eds. Urban Waterfronts '87: Water the Ultimate Amenity. Washington, D.C.: The Waterfront Press, 1988. Burke, D. Leslie, and H . Silverman. "Ports and Public Access." Unpublished thesis, University of British Columbia, 1969. Charles, HRH The Prince of Wales. A Vision of Britain. London: Doubleday, 1989. Chilcote, Paul W., "The Containerization Story: Meeting the Competition in Trade." Urban Ports and Harbour Management. Ed. Marc J. Hersman. New York: Taylor & Francis, 1988. 125-145. Church, Andrew. "Demand-led Planning, the Inner-city Crisis and the Labour Market: London Docklands Evaluated." Revitalizing the Waterfront. Eds. B. S. Boyle, D. A . Pinder, and M . S. Husain. London, England: Belhaven Press. 1988. 199-221. Clark, Michael. "Strategic Planning Issues."Revitalizing the Waterfront. Eds. B. S. Boyle, D. A. Pinder, and M . S. Husain. London, England: Belhaven Press. 1988, 222-231.  243  244 Daly, M . T. and R. J. Stimson. Australian Cities and Property Development In the International Context: The Challenges. Pacific Rim Conference on Urban Development, Hong Kong: n.p., 1990. English, H . Edward. Tomorrow the Pacific. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1991. Epstein, Peter. "Making the Numbers Work: Financing Waterfront Restoration in an Age of Uncertainty." The Urban Edge. Eds. Joseph E. Petrillo and Peter Grenell. Los Altos, CA: State Coastal Conservancy, 1985. 94-101. Furudoi, Teruaki and Yasuki Fujimori. "Present State and Future Outlook of Utilization of Coastal Ocean Space in Japan." Coastal Ocean Space Utilization. Eds. Susan D. Halsey and Robert B. Abel. New York: Elsevier, 1989. 59-82. Goodwin, Robert, ed. Waterfront Revitalization for Smaller Communities. Seattle, Washington: University of Washington, 1987. "Waterfront Revitalization: Ways to Retain Maritime Industries." Urban Ports and Harbor Management. Ed. Marc J. Hersman. New York: Taylor & Francis, 1988. 287-305. Hall, Peter. The Bay Area in the Twenty-First Century: Shall We Survive? Los Angeles: University of California at Berkeley, 1990. Waterfronts: A New Urban Frontier. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991. Halsey, Susan D., and Robert B. Abel, eds. Coastal Ocean Space Utilization. New York: Elsevier, 1989. Harney, Leon, ed. Reviving the Urban Waterfront. Washington, DC: Office of Coastal Zone Management, 1979. Hayuth, Yehuda. "Changes on the Waterfront: A Model-Based Approach." Revitalizing the Waterfront. Eds. B. S. Boyle, D. A . Pinder, and M . S. Husain. London, England: Belhaven Press, 1988. 52-64. Hershman, Marc J., ed. Urban Ports and Harbor Management. New York: Taylor & Francis, 1988. Hilling, David. "Socio-economic Change in the Maritime Quarter: The Demise of Sailortown." Revitalizing the Waterfront. Eds. B. S. Hoyle, D. A . Pinder, and M . S. Husain. London, England: Belhaven Press, 1988. 20-37. Hodge, Gerald. Planning Canadian Communities. Toronto: Methuen, 1986. Hofmeister, Burkhard. Australia and its Urban Centres. Ed. Wolf Tietze Helmstedt. Berlin: Gebruder Bornstraeger, 1988.  245 Hotson, Norman. "Principles and Approaches to Waterfront Development." Small Harbours Development in British Columbia. Ed. John Shaw. Victoria, B.C.: The Ministry of Regional Development, 1989. 71-81. Hoyle, B. S. "Development Dynamics at the Port-City Interface." Revitalizing the Waterfront. Eds. B. S. Hoyle, D. A. Pinder, and M . S. Husain. London, England: Belhaven Press, 1988. 119. Hoyle, B. S., and D. A . Pinder, eds. Cityport Industrialization and Regional Development. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1979. Hoyle, B. S., D. A . Pinder, and M . S. Husain, eds. Revitalizing the Waterfront. London, England: Belhaven Press. 1988. Law, Christopher M . "Urban Revitalization, Public Policy and the Redevelopment of Redundant Port Zones: Lessons from Baltimore and Manchester." Revitalizing the Waterfront. Eds. B. S. Hoyle, D. A . Pinder, and M.S. Husain. London, England: Belhaven Press, 1988. 146-166. Ley, David. "Gentrification: A Ten Year Overview." City Magazine Winter 1986/87: 18-19. McNulty, Robert H . , and Patricia A. Hunter. "The Value of Amenities: Waterfront Restoration Can Pay Off." The Urban Edge. Eds. Joseph E. Petrillo and Peter Grenell. Los Altos, CA: State Coastal Conservancy, 1985. 86-93. McNulty, Robert H . , R. Leo Penne, and Dorothy R. Jacobson. The Return of the Liveable City. Washington, D.C.: Acropolis Books, 1986. Mikicich, Stephen Nenad. Waterfront Development in the Post-industrial City. Unpublished Thesis MA (Planning), Vancouver: University of British Columbia, 1990. Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, Government of Canada. The Urban Waterfront: Growth and Change in Canadian Port Cities. Vols. 1 & 2, Ottawa,, 1978. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration. Improving Your Waterfront: A Practical Guide. Washington, D. C : G.P.O., 1980. Norcliffe, G. B. "Processes Affecting Industrial Development in Port Areas in Canada." Cityport Industrialization and Regional Development. Eds. B. S. Hoyle and D. A . Pinder. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1979. 151-166. Petrillo, Joseph E., and Peter Grenell, eds. The Urban Edge. Los Altos, CA: State Coastal Conservancy, 1985. Pinder, David, Brian Hoyle, and Sohail Husain. "Retreat, Redundancy and Revitalisation: Forces, Trends and a Research Agenda." Revitalizing the Waterfront. Eds. B. S. Hoyle, D. A . Pinder, and M . S. Husain. London, England: Belhaven Press, 1988. 248-260.  246 Powell, J.M. "The Environments: A Broken Topography, a Monotonous Relief." The SydneyMelbourne Book. Ed. Jim Davidson. Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1986. Randall, James E. "Fostering Economic Development: The Noncargo Alternatives." Urban Ports and Harbor Management. Ed. Marc J. Hersman. New York: Taylor & Francis, 1988. 147-172. Riley, Ray, and Louis Shurmer-Smith. "Global Imperatives, Local Forces and Waterfront Redevelopment." Revitalizing the Waterfront. Eds. B. S. Hoyle, D. A . Pinder, and M . S. Husain. London, England: Belhaven Press, 1988. 38-51. Shaw, John, ed. Small Harbours Development in British Columbia. Victoria, B.C.: The Ministry of Regional Development, 1989. Slack, Brian. Harbour Redevelopment in Canada. Ottawa: Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, 1975. Smith, Peter Michael, ed. Pacific Rim Cities in the World Economy. Vol. 2, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1989. Torre, L . Azeo. Waterfront Development. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1989. Tunbridge, John. "Policy Convergence on the Waterfront? A Comparative Assessment of North American Revitalization Strategies." Revitalizing the Waterfront. Eds. B. S. Hoyle, D.A. Pinder, and M . S. Husain. London, England: Belhaven Press, 1988. 67-91. Tweedale, Ian. "Waterfront Redevelopment, Economic Restructuring and Social Impact." Revitalizing the Waterfront. Eds. B. S. Hoyle, D . A . Pinder, and M . S. Husain. . London, England: Belhaven Press, 1988. 185-198. United States Department of the Interior. Improving Your Waterfront: A Practical Guide. Washington, D.C.: Office of Coastal Zone Management, 1980. Urban Waterfront Revitalization. Vols. 1 & 2, Washington, D. C : Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, 1980. Weber, G. P., ed. The Design Of Svdnev. Sydney: The Law Book Company, 1988. Wrenn, Douglas. Urban Waterfront Development. Washington, D. C : Urban Land Institute, 1983. BRISBANE - SOUTH BANK Brisbane City Council. Liveable Brisbane. Brisbane: Brisbane City Council, 1 October 1993. Brisbane Department of Development and Planning. South Brisbane Area Development Plan (SBADP). Brisbane: Brisbane City Council, January 1993: 1. Cameron, Fiona. "Plans for Expo Site." The Weekend Australian Property 1, November 1989: 1819.  247 Church, John. "$1000m South Bank." The Sun [Brisbane]. 17 Nov 1988: 5. Craik, Jennifer. "Expo 88: Fashions of Sight and Politics of Site." Celebrating The Nation. Ed. Tony Bennett et al., Australian Cultural Studies. Ed. John Tulloch. Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1992. 142-159. "The Expo Experience: The Politics of Expositions." Australian-Canadian Studies. Vol. 7, Nos. 1-2, 1989. Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1992. 95-111. Davies, Russell. "Urban Redevelopment: A Case Study of the Impact of World Expo 88." Australian Geography: Current Issues. Ed. R. Ritchie. Sydney: McGraw Hill, 1990. 126-146. Doughty, Jane. "Expo plan changed." Courier-Mail [Brisbane]. 14 March 1990: 1. Elliott, Ross. "How will South Bank be Filled?" Citv News 17 September 1992: n.p. Este, Jonathan. " A Sure Bet." The Weekend Australian Property 47, 27-28 June 1992. "Expo Blight." Courier-Mail [Brisbane]. 29 July 1988. Franklin, Matthew. "Getting it Right." Courier-Mail [Brisbane]. April 25, 1990: 9. Gibson, Guy. Brisbane: City Planning and World Expo 88. Seminar Paper presented at Weltausstellung Aktuell, Budapest, 1988. Longhurst, R.I. South Bank: An Historical Perspective. Brisbane: Print Liaison, 1993. Massey, Murray. "Public Sector Wins." Australian Financial Review 28 June 1988: 5. Matthew, Franklin. "Getting it Right." The Courier-Mail [Brisbane]. 26 April 1990: 9. Maunsell Pty. Ltd. (1991). Environmental and Geotechnical Investigation - Final Report. Sydney: Property Services Group, October 1991. Morely, Peter, and Jane Doughty. "Gaming Rights." Courier- Mail [Brisbane]. 9 May 1988: 3. Rankin, Claire. "Managers to Oversee Expo Site Plan." The Weekend Australian Property 3, October 1989: 7-8. Roberts, Greg. "Qld Denies Cronyism." Sydney Morning Herald 12 May 1988: 7. Robson, Pamela. "Doubts Grow." The Weekend Australian June 11-12 1988: 35. "Expo Site Funding." The Weekend Australian Property 2, 13-14 July 1988: 40. . "Expo Site May Go to Foreign Developer." The Weekend Australian. 18-19 June 1988: 42.  248 Rodgers, Shane. "Carry the Cost." Courier-Mail [Brisbane] 26 Feb 1988: 5. Schloss, Glenn. "Hotel and Offices Next." The Courier-Mail [Brisbane]. 14 August 1992: 17. "South Bank Leaseholds." The Courier-Mail [Brisbane]. 22 November 1991: 19. Smith, Amanda. "City on the World Stage." The Courier-Mail. Tourism, [Brisbane]. 15 March, 1993: 16. South Bank Corporation. Annual Report 1993. Brisbane: South Bank Corporation, 1992. . Area Approved Development Plan Parts A and B. Brisbane: Queensland Government Gazette 293, (111), 28 April 1990. Sweetapple, Pamela. "Decision Draws Near." The Weekend Australian. Property 1, 29-30 August 1988. Walker, Jamie. "Ahern ledge." Courier-Mail [Brisbane]. 23 May 1988: 1. . "Public bonds." Courier-Mail [Brisbane] 12 August 1988: 1. Watson, Wayne. "Clergy Oppose Expo Plan." The Sun [Brisbane]. 27 May, 1988: 7. NEWCASTLE, NSW AUSTRALIA - H O N E Y S U C K L E Cogan, Brian. Newcastle and the Hunter. Double Bay, NSW: Focus Books Pty Ltd., 1991. Devine, Erby Mazlin. Honeysuckle Master Plan. Newcastle: Property Services Group, January 1992. Honeysuckle Development Corporation. Annual Report 1992/93. Newcastle: HDC, 1992. Honeysuckle. Marketing Brochure, Newcastle: HDC, n.d. Honeysuckle Project Key Statistics. Newcastle: HDC, n.d. Honeysuckle Project Strategy & Business Plan. Newcastle: HDC, May 1993. . Information Update No.4. Newcastle: HDC, February 1994. . Major Private Sector Investor. Information Update, Newcastle: HDC, n.d. Howe, Brian, MP. Speech Notes for Building Better Cities Program Launch. Sydney: 24 September 1992. Newcastle City Council, Strategic Planning - Planning Services Division. Community Profiles for Suburban Areas 1991. Newcastle City Council, n.d.: 4.  249 New South Wales Department of Planning. "$18 Million Committed." Building Better Cities Honeysuckle & Environs Newsletter January 1994: 1-5. . "Inner Newcastle Housing Strategy." Building Better Cities Honeysuckle & Environs Newsletter February 1994. New South Wales Property Services Group. Annual Report 1992-93. Sydney: PSG, 1993. . "Heritage school." Property Matters Newsletter Vol. 1, Sydney: PSG, Sept. 1993: 10. "Honeysuckle takes shape." Property Matters Newsletter. Vol 1, Sydney: PSG, April 1993: 5. "Provincial Paradise." Australian Business Monthly February 1992. Riley, Mark. "The Best City in the World." Svdnev Morning Herald 2 November 1992. Shortland Electricity. "Honeysuckle Ready to Blossom?" Hunter Insight No. 3, Newcastle: NeatCorp, September 1992: 4-5. Williams, Natalie. "City Plan Vision of the Future." The Australian 19 October 1991. SAN FRANCISCO, C A , USA - MISSION B A Y Adams, Gerald D. "Historic Decision." San Francisco Examiner 24 October 1990. Bash, Alec S. "Collaboration at Mission Bay." Landscape Architecture April/May 1988. The Mission Bay Urban Redevelopment Project. San Francisco: Dept. of City Planning City & County of San Francisco, October 1992. Brechin, Gray. "Urban Waterfront Restoration on the California Coast." The Urban Edge. Eds. Joseph E. Petrillo and Peter Grenell. Los Altos, CA: State Coastal Conservancy, 1985. 5065. Degenhardt, Christopher. "The Plan for Mission Bay." Conference Paper of 1990 Hong Kong Conference of The Pacific Rim Council on Urban Development. Hong Kong: PRCUD, 1990. Hartman, Chester. The Transformation of San Francisco. New Jersey: Rowman & Allanheld, 1984. . Yerba Buena. Land Grab and Community Resistance in San Francisco. San Francisco: Glide Publications, 1974. Lewis, Sherman. Managing Urban Growth in the San Francisco Bay Region. Hayward, CA.: Centre for Public Service Education and Research, 1990.  250 Lewis, Oscar. San Francisco: Mission to Metropolis. 2nd Edition. San Diego: Howell-North Books, 1980. Porter, Douglas R. "Mission [Almost] Impossible." Urban Land January 1992. San Francisco Department of City Planning. Mission Bay - Proposal for Citizen Review. San Francisco: Dept. of Planning, n.d. Mission Bay Summary - Land Use Program and Financial Responsibilities. San Francisco: Dept. of City Planning, February 28, 1990. . "Mission Bay - The Plan." Information poster. San Francisco: Dept Of Planning, n.d. Planning San Francisco's Mission Bay Community. San Francisco: Dept. of Planning, n.d. Summary Mission Bay Proposal. San Francisco: Dept. of City Planning, February 21, 1991. San Francisco Mayor's Office of Business and Economic Development. San Francisco - America's Favourite City. San Francisco: Mayor's Office of Business and Economic Development, n.d. Scott, Mel. The San Francisco Bay Area. 2nd Ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985. Stephens, Suzanne. "Urban Waterfronts." Progressive Architecture June 1975: 41-42. "Taming the City Edge." Architecture April 1990: 75-79, 147. Woodbridge, Sally, "Urban Issues - Mission Bay." Progressive Architecture n.d.: 121-122. SYDNEY, NSW, AUSTRALIA - CITY WEST U R B A N STRATEGY City West Development Corporation. Annual Report 1992-93. Sydney: CWDC, 1993. "Development of Infrastructure." Briefing. Issue 3, Sydney: CWDC, October 1993. . "Draft Pyrmont Point Master Plan." Briefing. Issue 4.3, Sydney: CWDC, October 1993. . "Draft Saunders Street Master Plan." Briefing. Issue 4.2 October 1993 Sydney: CWDC, October 1993. . "Parks & Waterfront Draft." Briefing. Issue 4.3.1, Sydney: CWDC, October 1993. _ Pvrmont Point. Sydney: PSG, 1993. . "Realising a Great Vision." Briefing. Issue 2, Sydney: CWDC, October 1993. . Shaping an Urban Future. Sydney: CWDC, 1993.  251 . "The Mission of CityWest." Briefing. Issue 1, Sydney: CWDC, October 1993. Davidson, Jim, Ed. The Sydney-Melbourne Book. Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1986. New South Wales Casino Control Authority. Report on the Location. Size and Style of the New South Wales Casino. Sydney: NSW Casino Control Authority, 30 November 1992. New South Wales Department of Housing. Bowman Street: Community and Public Housing Pyrmont Point. Sydney: NSW Dept. of Housing, 1993. New South Wales Department of Planning. City West Draft Regional Environmental Plan No. 26 and Draft Urban Development Plan. Sydney,: NSW Dept. of Planning, 1991. City West Regional Environmental Study - Planning Opportunities. Sydney: NSW Dept. of Planning, 1991. . Citv West Urban Strategy. Sydney: NSW Dept. of Planning, 1990. "Have Your Say." Building Better Cities Eveleigh Newsletter February 1994. . Sydney's Future. Sydney: Dept. of Planning, 1993. . Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 26 - City West Amendment No. 1 (Eveleigh Precinct) and Draft Urban Development Plan. Sydney: NSW Dept. of Planning, 1992. . Ultimo-Pyrmont Precinct Planning Study. Sydney: NSW Dept. of Planning, 1991. New South Wales Property Services Group. Annual Report 1992-93. Sydney, Aus: PSG, 1993. . Pvrmont Bay Master Plan. Sydney: NSW PSG, June 1993. New South Wales State Planning Authority. Sydney Region: Outline Plan 1970-2000 A.D. Australia: State Planning Authority of New South Wales, 1968. Starbird, Ethel A . "Sydney." National Geographic February 1979: 217-35. Well, Andrew. "Business - Cities of Capital." The Sydney-Melbourne Book.. Ed. Jim Davidson. Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1986. VANCOUVER, B C , CANADA - PACIFIC P L A C E , C O A L HARBOUR & BAYSHORE GARDENS B. C. Environment. "Construction & Remediation." RAPP, Spring '91: 6-7. "Industrial Residues." Soils of Pacific Place Newsletter October 1991. . "On-Site Storage." Soils of Pacific Place Newsletter September 1992.  252 . "Pacific Place Soil Standards." Soils of Pacific Place Newsletter October 1991. . "Polychlorinated Biphenyls." Soils of Pacific Place Newsletter October 1991. . "Putting Technology to the Test." Soils of Pacific Place Newsletter October 1991. . "The Industrial Era." RAPP Spring 1991: 2. "The Pacific Place Remediation Project." Soils of Pacific Place Newsletter October 1991. Branham, Daphine. Untitled article. Vancouver Sun 4 Nov 1989. . "Coal Harbour." Vancouver Sun 9 December 1989. . "Expo Estimates." Vancouver Sun 13 January 1990. Burkinshaw, Robert K. False Creek: History. Images, and Research Sources. Vancouver: City of Vancouver Archives, 1984. Buttle, Jeff. " A Major Transit Impact." The Vancouver Courier 15 June 1988: B - l . Cornejo, Dan, et al. B.C. Place Overall development framework - Draft. Vancouver: B.C. Place Corp., 1984. Cox, Sarah. "Expo Site." The Vancouver Sun October 8, 1987. Cox, Susan. "Speedy Zoning." The Vancouver Sun June 28, 1988. Davis, Chuck, and Shirley Money. Vancouver: An Illustrated Chronology. Burlington, Ont.: Windsor Publications, 1986. "Fairview Slopes Development History - Where, What & Who." photocopied excerpt, n.p., n.d. Fayerman, Pamela. "Mayor Backs $20 Million Housing Plan." Vancouver Sun 7 November 1988. Gourley, Catherine. Island in the Creek. Madeira Park, B.C.: Harbour Publishing, 1988. Greater Vancouver Regional District. Creating Our Future: Steps to a More Liveable Region. Vancouver: GVRD, September 1990. Greater Vancouver Key Facts. Vancouver: GVRD Strategic Planning Department, 1993. Vancouver Perspectives. Vancouver: GVRD Development Services Department, n.d. Gutstein, Donald. Vancouver Ltd. Toronto: James Lorimer & Company, 1975. Hamilton, Gordon. "Breathtaking." Vancouver Sun 28 April 1988: A - l , A-12.  253 . "Deal to Clean Up Expo Site." Vancouver Sun 17 January 1990. . "Expo Plan." Vancouver Sun Aug 26. 1989. «Li Probably Recouped all Expo Land Costs." Vancouver Sun 7 March 1991. . "Marathon." Vancouver Sun April 30, 1988: A - l . . " M L A Condemns Socred Stupidity." Vancouver Sun Jan. 27, 1990: A - l . . "Revamping the Waterfront." Vancouver Sun 31 May 1988: D - l . . "West Coast Venice." Vancouver Sun April 28, 1988: G l . Hardwick, Walter. Vancouver. Don Mills: Collier-Macmillan Canada, Ltd., 1974. Hull, Raymond, Gordon Soules, and Christine Soules. Vancouver's Past. Vancouver: Gordon Soules Economic and Marketing Research, 1974. Interville Developments Ltd. International Village. Information Brochure, Vancouver: Interville Developments Ltd., n.d. Johnson, Richard. " A Vision of Vancouver's Waterfront." Planning Action May 1992: 5-7. Lee, Jeff. "Density Tied to Rental Housing." Vancouver Sun February 7, 1990: A - l . . "Stall alleged." Vancouver Sun June 25, 1988. Mann, Richard C.. Waterfront Planning Study. Working Paper 4. Vancouver: City of Vancouver, 1974. Marathon Realty Company Ltd. "Burrard Landing: A New Downtown Commercial District." Public Information Bulletin - Coal Harbour. Vancouver: Marathon, Spring 1993. "Coal Harbour: The Waterfront Project." Public Information Bulletin - Coal Harbour. Vancouver: Marathon, Summer\Fall 1990. . False Creek - A Marathon Realty Development. Vancouver: Marathon Realty Co. Ltd., 1973. . Statement of Intent. Vancouver: Marathon Realty Co. Ltd., 8 April 1974. "The Marina Neighbourhood - A Community to Live In." Public Information Bulletin Coal Harbour. Vancouver: Marathon, Fall/Winter 1991. Views from Coal Harbour Newsletter. Vancouver: Marathon, May 1991. Views from Coal Harbour Newsletter. Vancouver: Marathon, September 1991.  254 McMartin, Pete. "Concord Treads Slowly." Vancouver Sun October 24 1992: B3. "Realtors Question Process." Real Estate Weekly March 18 1988. Rodger, Ruth. Creating a Livable Inner City Community - Vancouver's Experience. Vancouver: Agency Press Limited, 1976. Roy, Patricia E. The History of Canadian Cities - Vancouver - An Illustrated History. Toronto: James Lorimer & Company, 1980. Sarti, Robert. "Tower Plan Trimmed." Vancouver Sun 16 October 1992. Tevlin, Tom. "Creek Plan." Vancouver Courier July 6, 1988: 7. . "Marathon." Vancouver Courier August 10 1988: 1. Usinger, Mike. "Coal Harbour." Vancouver Courier 21 January 1990: 3. Vancouver City Council. Bayshore Rezoning Application. Minutes of Public Hearing, Vancouver: City of Vancouver, November 21, 1991. "Mega-Project Fees." Manager's Report. Vancouver: Vancouver City Planning Dept., April 17 1991. . "Re-zoning of International Village." Manager's Report. Vancouver: Vancouver City Planning Dept., 1 Feb 1989. . "Timetable and Staffing for Involvement with Concord Pacific. Manager's Report. Vancouver: City Council, 29 June 1988. Vancouver Planning Department. " A Plan For Expo Lands." False Creek Planning News Jan. 1990. "Bayshore Project." Coal Harbour Planning News Fall 1991. . "Bayshore Proposal." Coal Harbour Planning News Spring 1991. . Central Area Plan - Goals and Land Use Policy. Vancouver: Planning Dept..  1991.  Coal Harbour Development Project Community Facilities Study. Vancouver: Vancouver Planning Dept., n.d. Coal Harbour Policy Statement. Vancouver: Planning Dept., September 1990. "Creek Development Update." False Creek Planning News June 1992. False Creek Policy Broadsheets. Vancouver: Planning Dept., August 1989. .  Major Projects Fact Sheet. March 14, 1994.  255 "Planning the Quayside." False Creek Planning News June 1992. Public Involvement in the Planning of the North Shore of False Creek. Vancouver: Planning Dept. January, 1989. . Rental Housing Incentive in Coal Harbour and False Creek North. Vancouver: Vancouver Planning Dept., March 1990. "The Planning Process." False Creek Planning News Oct. 1989. "Yaletown Edge." False Creek Planning News January 1990. Voisey, Mark. "$1000M Revamp for Expo Site." Vancouver Sun. 14 November 1988: 1. Volkart, Carol. "Public's response." Vancouver Sun March 2, 1989. YOKOHAMA, JAPAN - MINATO MIRAI 21 Housing and Urban Development Corporation. Minato Mirai 21. Yokohama: HUDC, March 1993. Kato, Yuzo, ed. Yokohama Past and Present. Yokohama: Yokohama City University, 1990. Kitamura, Mataru, and Tsuneyoshi Tanaka. "New Development of Coastal Space Utilization in Japanese Large Cities: Part 2~Minato-Mirai 21 Project and Yokohama Recreation Island [Hakkei-Jima]." In Coastal Ocean Space Utilization. Eds. Susan D. Halsey and Robert B. Abel. New York: Elsevier, 1989, 191-205. Maruyama, Eiki. "Housing." in Yokohama Past and Present. Ed. Kato Yuzo. Yokohama: Yokohama City University, 1990, 248-249. Masaki, Yukio. "Transportation Today." Yokohama Past and Present. Ed. Kato Yuzo. Yokohama: Yokohama City University, 1990, 210-211. Okata, Junichiro. "Urban Design." Yokohama Past and Present. Ed. Yuzo Kato. Yokohama: Yokohama City University, 1990, 204-205. Pacifico Yokohama. PACIFICO. Yokohama: Pacifico Yokohama, 1991. Sasaki, Ichiro, and Junichiro Okata. "Six Major Projects." Yokohama Past and Present. Ed. Kato Yuzo. Yokohama: Yokohama City University, 1990. T.R.Y 90. Block 24. Information Brochure. Yokohama: T.R.Y 90, 1994. Yokohama Minato Mirai 21 Corporation. Basic Agreement on Town Development Under Minato Mirai 21. Yokohama: Minato Mirai 21 Town Development Council, March 1993 . MM21 Information Bulletin. Yokohama: MM21 Corp., August 1991, 92-93.  a o  v>  81  ©  CM  8  8  3  en  ©  ©  r-  SI  •* CM"  ©  00  NO  5  ©  r-  8  NO CM  8 NO  "1 NO  u E  I  s  ©  S  CM  co  P-  CM  O:  en  w 5  X Q  u 3  ill  ! 2  •a 1 I  I  8 CO  III H  mil  I  y £ 8  o PI  8 00  _2  •S a  o  £2-  •3  rCvl  g u  o  o vn vo  25  •a  8  8  1  8 c U  3  c  o .S  s  o  c  "a o  PL J3  1  I o  I  3  3  o  1  5 5"?  s  o  ri  o  8 5}  8  in  E U  2«  8  s  3  E S §  1 OH  3 X %  §  a,  SO  I  I  o  S  U-l  Iii  %  8  CM  8  I  o  : : vv: : : :  :  :  :  :  JiS*  ::'Tv1;"" ::  00  8 CO  w  1  CO  n  II  CL.  z w a.  5l  3  c  2  e  1:1  I  I X  a I  ill  s  £6o 6  H  §  •a 3  1 SO o  §  18 a c o  vo  3 Xi  8  x>  i  c o  I  3  o o  .a  .3  CO  <•/> -p *f  1  .3  2  •o  o  VO OO  5 (4  1 -a  B  13  2  I X  5 z  a  5| CM  I  CO  tq  o  S O3  -"81  O  •i & 3 x§  e  o. 2  8  m  •s 53  « a >> 3 E •S * 1 J2 £  ,5 -S  ^6/  VO  CO  5)  •a -a  .3 a> _  o  .1° 3 X  t3  I "8  to  O  OO  VI  '3 > xj 13 CO  03  W  3  w  5  X  s z  51  .3  <5 -a 5  3 3.(o3* CM  o  .5  a  o" .3 3  8  o  o  e o  •o e co .3  .9  I  5 3 ™ Q  3  1  15  co » 60  e "a f  Q  o  .5  .S 9  8  Si  .5  o ft. o O  .S  8 Jg o  V)  1  s  •8  I  s CO  •2 £  .s  Z a^  1  w CO  •a o O Q  Z w CL,  51  d 8 M  O  <M  O  H3  1"  •3  S t3  T3 3  °B o CO  60  •a  I  ° §  1  £ ^ -s  I  2 0  X  X 3  1  CQ  T3  i I  60  .3  1 s OH  60  1  .3  I  (0 X  3 X  2  •s 3 X  CO  3  K  +2  2 5  e  DO  I  3  S  •a X  o *  1 o o  a  >  H o S  •g co Z  2- X!  a  .8  I  1 •S  o  oi  .3  .Si,  1 CQ  is e  3  « -a u  < r-  g  I  3  1  11  c o  •i CO  .s  I 4) o J* o 'S " PH  CO  a,  8 ts o  81  o OH  3  If  B  5H  60  60  I  fi •§ T? -5  •a  ' ,2 -a  5  1  S  1  *3 -tf 3 *S  CO  w  5  CD  61  CO  11 X Q  Z w  511  3  CA  ci-  >3  §I .9  1 8E  PI Si  vo  o * •r. VI VO  e  I  1 2  I  OH  I  .s 8  I CD  to  oo  -o O  i  §•  v>  -p  d  ^ •a •§  s  c 0  03 2  J  1  I a 3>  .3  c '8 OH O  >  IS  tq CO  3  CO  a  P-  5|  o  =3 CD  UJ  1  C 3  J3  X Q  .3  e  Si s g  OH  I  B 8  8 CD  vi  CJi  OH  a  .9  1  11 I8  .9  3  APPENDIX 2 - SOUTH BANK DATA  Table 5 SOUTH BANK DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES  Rejuvenate the South Brisbaneriverfrontarea with a mixture of residential, commercial and tourist recreational development Ensure the form of redevelopment complements rather than competes with local business and the CBD Retain and enhanceriversideparklands and encourage recreation uses Preserve heritage features Provide a road network with a capacity similar to that which existed before the Expo site was closed and to preserve the traffic management options which existed prior to closure To minimise the adverse impacts on the surrounding area Source:Gibson, 30.  Table 6 SOUTH BANK DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES  create a landmark development provide for a diverse mixture of commercial, retail, residential, andrecreationaluses provide a high level of accessibility develop an integrated open space system and provide continuousriversidepedestrian and cycle link facilitate the establishment of accommodation, convention and other tourism and hospitality facilities minimize adverse traffic effects create a unifying theme and a uniquely Queensland character with the majority of activities focused on the element of water andrecreationalamenities; create the "Park within the Building within the Park" theme by allowing the landscape components to flow into the architecture Source: South Bank Master Plan Pt A  267  268  APPENDIX 3 - MINATO MIRAI 21 D A T A  Table 7 MM21 THIRD SECTOR PARTICIPANTS Name  Date Established  Capital  Yokohama Minato Mirai 21 Corporation Minato Mirai 21 Yokohama Pavilion  July 1984  Y 1.1 billion  Pacific Convention Plaza Yokohama Corporation (PACIFICO)  June 1987  Y 16.81 billion  Minato Mirai 21 District heating & Cooling Corp. Ltd.  Oct 1986  Y 3 billion  Seaside Subway Yokohama Inc.  March 1989  Y 5.3 billion  Memorial Foundation of Sail Training Ship "Nippon Maru"  Oct 1984  Y 2 billion  The Yokohama Art Foundation  Oct 1987  Y 100 million  Yokohama Convention Bureau  Nov 1988  Y 1 billion  Institute of Regional Information systems  Sept 1986  Y 1.4 billion  Media City yokohama Corp. Ltd.  Dec 1987  Y 670 million  Yokohama Shintoshi Centre Inc.  Dec 1980  Y 7.2 billion  Source: Yokohama MM21 Corp MM21 Information Bulletin  APPENDIX 3 - MINATO MIRAI 21 DATA  269  Table 8 MM21 ROLES OF M A J O R DEVELOPERS  Responsible Jurisdiction  Operation  Overall planning and coordination  Waterfront development (land reclamation) Development of port facilities (roads, greenery) City of Yokohama Public Sector  City refuse and sewage system Construction of public facilities (art museum Development of roads, parks, service tunnels, sewers etc  Third Sector  Japanese Government Kanagawa Prefecture  Construction of public facilities  Housing and Urban development Corp  Land Readjustment including preparation of site infrastructure, housing development and development of surplus government property  Yokohama Minato Mirai 21 Corp  Coordination development of facilities within MM21 development area; promotion and marketing of development; public relations  Pacific Convention Plaza Yokohama Corp  Construction and management of convention facilities  Minato Mirai 21 District Heating and Cooling Corp  Heating supply  Seaside Subway Inc  Minato Mirai 21 Line  Media City Yokohama Inc  Information Services  Others  Management and operation of Public Facilities  Private Sector Source: Yokohama MM21 Corp MM21 Information Bulletin  Construction of office and commercial facilities  APPENDIX 4 - HONEYSUCKLE DATA  Table 9 REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES  Revitalise the CBD and develop it into an effective capitol of the Hunter Region Strengthen Newcastle's role as the commercial and tourist focus of the Hunter region Strengthen the economic linkages of the Newcastle-Sydney- Wollongong conurbation Form the catalyst for the short and long term restructuring of the Region's transport system Provide an alternative location for employment and living to Sydney Improve employment opportunities and diversify the economic base of the city and the region. Source: Devine, Honeysuckle Concept Masterplan, January 1992  Table 10 H O N E Y S U C K L E DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES Economic  Act as a catalyst for the economic revitalisation of the Newcastle CBD and adjacent land  Social  Bring life into the city and improve the quality of life by making Honeysuckle a vibrant, people friendly, community place where people will want to live, work and play.  Environmental  contribute to the environmentally sustainabilty by reducing urban sprawl and ensuring environmentally sensitive planning  Transport  develop a more efficient public transport system  Financial  Optimize the long term returns of Government land and maximize financial return to the State and economic and social benefits to the local community;  Political  To maximize commitment to implement the project by all three levels of government, develop strong community support ensure maximum benefits to the community  Source:HDC Strategy & Business Plan, May 1993  270  271  APPENDIX 4 - HONEYSUCKLE DATA  Table 11 H O N E Y S U C K L E PLANNING PRINCIPLES Increase the working population and range of jobs offered in the CBD along with increased recreational and cultural activities; Encourage residential development adjacent to the CBD; Improve pedestrian and vehicular access to the waterfront and provide linkages between the CBD and the water; Allow government through the development of it sites to address any shortfall in employment, recreation and other community needs; Provide an alternative location for employment and living to Sydney; Improve the image and visual attractiveness of Newcastle CBD Create a sense of place and community focus; and retain and enhance the best of the 19th century built environment; Increase waterfront activity; promotion of the concept of decentralisation of businesses and residential development away from Sydney; Revitalise Newcastle into an effective Regional capitol as a regional centre for commerce, employment, recreation and entertainment; Develop a mix of affordable housing and other residential development to create a large and more diverse inner city population base which takes advantage of the close proximity to employment, recreation, entertainment and benefits from the harbour. Source: Honeysuckle Concept Masterplan, Devine Erby Mazlin,  January 1992.  APPENDIX 5 - MISSION BAY DATA  Table 12 DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES AND PRINCIPLES Mixed Uses - create a variety of uses in Mission Bay with emphasis on housing; contribute to diversifying San Francisco's economic base and expand employment opportunities; integrate retail and personal services into commercial and industrial areas; Commercial Development - should not create a second downtown - instead it should compete with suburban locations for secondary office ("back office"), research and development and other commercial and service uses. Neighbourhood commercial and retail districts should be created with cultural facilities and incorporate character similar to other San Francisco neighbourhoods, be pedestrian oriented and integrate with the surrounding areas. Contextual Design- Should emphasize the characteristic San Francisco development patterns. The scale should relate to the adjacent waterfront and existing development. The street pattern should be integrated with the surrounding districts. The development should be oriented to take advantage of the unique features of the Mission Bay setting, existing views, waterways, open space, and geography. The development should preserve existing landmarks and areas of historic architectural, or aesthetic value. New residential neighbourhoods should be developed with the character and quality of traditional San Francisco neighbourhoods. High density, low-rise woodframe construction should be emphasized. Housing - Provide affordable housing to a wide range of income groups. 30% -40% of the housing should be subsidized below-market rents and prices including deep subsidies. Ensure long term affordability. Integrate mixed-income units throughout Mission Bay housing developments. Create opportunities for innovative housing types, provide a wide range of housing choices and maintain the existing houseboat community. Develop small scaled and intimate private and semi-private open space for residents. Family units should be located close to open space. Housing should be developed that enhances the health and safety of residents and visitors. Facility Investment - All infrastructure costs should be borne by the developer. Energy conservation is to be encouraged and alternative sources of energy are to be examined. An active recycling program is to be pursued. Water conservation is to be promoted by implementing measures to minimize water use for households, irrigation and landscaping. Emergency services including fire and police stations are to be provided as part of the development. Facilities are to be designed to ensure seismic safety and all development is to meet strict environmental quality standards. Waterfront Uses and Amenities - Maintain public waterfront access. Provide a variety of open space accessible to all residents. Provide a variety of active and passive public recreational opportunities along the waterfront. Provide cultural, educational and community facilities and services including health, and child care services accessible to all residents (Porter, 28). Source: San Francisco Department of Planning, Mission Bay Plan January 1990.  272  APPENDIX 5 - MISSION BAY DATA  273  Table 13 MISSION B A Y DESIGN GUIDELINES Residential Design Guidelines are to reconcile the reality of large housing developments with the desire for fine grain variety and the kind of special identity of older San Francisco neighbourhoods. Street Design Guidelines are intended to create a dominant visual theme for all major streets which will provide continuity and enhance and enrich the Mission Bay experience. Open Space Design Guidelines were developed to acknowledge the two most dominant space features of Mission Bay - China Basin Channel (Mission Creek) and San Francisco Bay. Both the streetscape and open space elements are intended to be in keeping with the existing context of San Francisco. Commercial and Industrial Design Guidelines foster development which (1) produces building types to attract uses which will help diversify the City's economy; (2) defines streetscapes in the traditional manner of San Francisco's commercial and industrial buildings; (3) creates pleasant and useable public open spaces; (4) produces an urban fabric which breaks up large blocks and links separate developments with a system of public passageways and plazas; and (5) maximizes views and solar access for building users and pedestrians. Community Facilities Design Guidelines integrate the essential community and cultural facilities into the frame work of the Mission Bay Plan. Source: Mission Bay Plan: Proposal for Adoption (1990)  Table 14 MISSION B A Y COMMUNITY BENEFITS Community Facility/Benefit  Cost (millions)  200 seat cultural centre and theatre  $4.5  recreation centre and space for other community facilities  $3.3  child care centres  $2.4^.5  police station and an expanded fire station  $5.1  public art  $5.3  k-7 school with child care facilities  $9.3  health services and a health clinic  $2.0  Economic Development  $9.6-13.4  52 acres of parks  $31  Transit fees 11 acres for 3500 affordable housing units  $150  streets and utilities  $85  Source: San Francisco Dept. of Planning, Mission Bay Proposal. 9-10  274  APPENDIX 5 - MISSION BAY DATA  Table 15 MISSION BAY DEVELOPMENT PLANS HISTORICAL SUMMARY  Land Use  Warnecke Plan 1981  I.M. Pei Plan 1983  SOM Plan 1990  City-EDAW Plan 1987  Site Size (ac)  253  253  300  314.8  Residential Market Units Affordable Units  6000 none  7000 none  5390 2310  5200 3250  Total Residential Units  6000  7000  7703  8450  Housing Density (upa)  160  140  97  80  Commercial (000's) Office Space Lt Industry Retail  10,000 2,500 400  17,000 4,300 500  4,100 2,600 300  4,800 900 750  Total Commercial  12,900  21,800  7000  6,450  Hotels (rms)  2 (2100)  1 (500)  1 (500)  1 (500)  Recreation & Open pace (ac)  10  40  70  68.8  Max Height (floors)  25  42  8  8  Total Jobs  30,000  58,000  24,000  24,000  Est Cost ($ billions)  $3.0  $4.0  $2.0  $2.0  Est Time (years)  15-20  15-20  20-30  20-30  Source: Summary Mission Bay Proposal(Feb 21 1991): San Francisco Dept of City Planning; Degenhardt, Oct 1990, 4; Mission Bay Summary, Feb 28 1990, 4  APPENDIX 6 - CITY WEST URBAN STRATEGY DATA  Table 16 REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES Redevelopment should contribute to Sydney's growth and status as a financial, commercial and tourist city of world standing. revitalise employment. accommodate regional population growth by providing a wide choice of housing in inner-city areas, well serviced by public transport and close to employment. support the development of a rail strategy for Sydney region. stimulate economic activity. redevelopment of port lands to: support the operation, concentration and rationalisation of commercial shipping facilities; meet the changing needs of Sydney harbour as a regional and world port; and extend provisions for the water-basedrecreationneeds of Sydney's inner city areas. Source: NSW Dept. of Planning RES, 15.  Table 17 CITY WEST DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES  Development of mixed use waterfront precincts that combine economic activity and people places, creating a harbourside city in which to live and work; maintain the traditional maritime character; take advantage of access to water and water views; and provide a variety of uses Develop new harbourside residential areas for up to 30,000 residents within walking distance of city centre employment and which will contribute to the life and vitality of the city; Provide employment opportunities for up to 87,000 employees. Development which is ecologically sustainable based on a high level of use of public transportation and energy efficient building design and construction; Provision of a new light rail service for Ultimo/Pyrmont using the existing goods rail line; Development of a high-density, medium-rise urban form development that will optimizeresidentialdensity, complement the existing heritage character and protect harbour views; Encourage adaptive reuse of heritage structures and conservation of heritage items and areas. Provision of a comprehensive network of public paths, cycle ways, public squares and open spaces including development of continual public foreshore access; Provision of essential physical infrastructure and community facilities as part of the development process; Source :NSW Dept. of Planning, Strategy, 1-3  275  APPENDIX 6 - CITY WEST URBAN STRATEGY DATA Table 18 CITY WEST DEVELOPMENT PRINCD7LES  The public domain is to be accessible for all residents; integrate recreation space, the pedestrian network and the built form; and provide public recreation facilities. The public domain, existing public social and physical infrastructure will be developed and financed through contributions of land and/or funding by private developers. Provide a variety of housing types and sizes for varied income levels. Provide opportunities for people to live and work in the same environment. Provide a range of recreational, cultural, employment and educational activities closely linked to the City centre and public transportation. Improve the quality of the waterways and foreshore and provide improved access to the harbour while providing for continued operations of the Port of Sydney. Respect the character of heritage items and conservation areas and encourage the adaptive reuse of heritage structures. Protect the natural environment by providing a high quality living and working environment. Encourage walking, cycling and use of public transport and limit parking. Facilitate the operational and financial efficiency of the rail system. Encourage uses which reflect the traditional maritime nature of the area and provide a variety of uses which are people oriented and will add vitality and interest to the waterfront. Source: NSW Dept. of Planning ,REP, 11  Table 19 CITY WEST URBAN DESIGN PRINCD?LES  Public Domain: should consist of a  series of linked streets, squares, arcades and parks to allow easy access on foot to the main elements of the city  Identity: create a sense of place  by enhancing the setting, history, topography, landscape and built character, to give residents a sense of belonging, community, pride and security  Mixed Uses:  encourage vitality and give people the opportunity to fulfil most of their needs locally  Pedestrian Priority: to reduce pedestrian/vehicle  conflict, provide good accessibility for those without cars and provide pleasant healthy movement throughout  Human Scale:  a scale at which people do not feel overwhelmed by buildings, and to allow people to live comfortably at higher densities  Heritage: preservation and reuse of historic buildings and artifacts must be fostered to help people understand the continuity of a place and respect and maintain its heritage Legibility: to allow  people to understand the urban form and be able to easily travel around the city  Source: Sydney's Future, 50.  276  APPENDIX 7 - PACIFIC PLACE, COAL HARBOUR & BAYSHORE GARDENS DATA  277  Table 20 NORTH F A L S E C R E E K DEVELOPMENT PLANS HISTORICAL S U M M A R Y BC Place 1982  Concord Pacific 1989  98  180 40 220  166 38 204  4880  1050 8326 713 1663 11752  1140 5840 760 760 8500  7900  19000  14500  4,600 800 1,200 6630  2,600 430  Recreation & Open space  45 + walkway  50 + walkway  Max Bldg Height (floors)  30  34  Land Use  SITE SIZE (acres) Land Water Total Site  Marathon Realty 1969  90  RESIDENTIAL UNITS market family market non-family non-market family non-market non-family Total Residential TOTAL POPULATION COMMERCIAL (000 sq ft) office retail hotel Total Commercial  20000  Marathon Realty 1974  150  12000  Total Jobs Est Cost ($million) Est Time (years)  3000  $250  $150  $2,500 20  20  Source: Marathon Development. Statement of Development Intent April 8, 1974; Marathon Development Plan, 1969; Cornejo et al, Draft Plan , January 11 1984; and Vancouver Planning Department, False Creek ODP April 10, 1990.  APPENDIX 7 - PACIFIC PLACE, COAL HARBOUR & BAYSHORE GARDENS DATA  Table 21 C E N T R A L A R E A D E V E L O P M E N T OBJECTIVES  THE ECONOMIC GENERATOR Provide a focus for the areas head offices and their support services. AN ALIVE DOWNTOWN Create a central area that has a mix of activities where people live shop, play and work where streets are the primary scene of public life. FOR ALL PEOPLE Ensure the central area is a place to live and visit for all people, incomes ethnic groups, ages and accessible to all. A SPIRIT OF PLACE Strengthen the unique qualities of the central area, its heritage, character, public places and neighbourhoods. A CENTRAL AREA IN NATURE Ensure the central area reflects the natural setting and maintain and improve the environmental quality. A WALKABLE CENTRAL AREA Enhance the central area as a place where pedestrians move safely easily and comfortable where walking is supplemented by transit and bicycles.  AN ACCESSIBLE CENTRAL AREA Source: Vancouver Planning Dept., Central Area Plan. 3  278  APPENDIX 7 - PACIFIC PLACE, COAL HARBOUR & BAYSHORE GARDENS DATA  279  Table 22 D E V E L O P M E N T OBJECTIVES A N D POLICIES  Water Uses and Marinas: Maintain and encourage a diversity of water uses; provide for views and access to the water. In Coal Harbour encourage the retention of small-scale marine uses; encourage desirable port uses, including the possible provision of a new marine terminal for cruise ships; provide for seaplanes; discourage and eliminate floating homes and offices, and most boatsheds except those required for temporary use by marina repair operations; allow up 200 live-a-boards. Water Basin and Shoreline: Preserve and enhance the Water basin; avoid alterations that narrow the major basins, encourage shoreline treatment that accommodates a variety of experiences; designate a portion of the waterbody as a recreation area; ensure no net loss to fish habitat; Public Access and Waterfront Walkways:Provide a continuous waterfront pedestrian/cyclist system along the waterfront designed to separate pedestrians and cyclists. Include a variety of seawall treatments The existing walkway for the Bayshore development will be upgraded to the new development standards. Commercial/retail uses will be located along the walkway An interesting variety of waterfront experiences must be provided . 1  Parks and Public Open Space: form an integral part of each community. Major parks should be located at the waters edge Public art will be integrated into public open space.. A variety of both active to passive parks should be provided. Private and semi-public open spaces should provide adequate play spaces for young children, Dedicated park space should not be considered in mlfilling neighbourhood park requirements. The development of parks and public open space should occur concurrently with the residential development which they are intended to serve. Retail/Service Development: Avoid major retail shopping centres that would adversely affect downtown instead, provide a street oriented retail area that can function as a destination. Permit specialty retail focused on tourism to reinforce the Trade and Convention Centre activity and the Chinatown and Gastown area. Office/Hotel Development: current policy is to choose residential over office development wherever reasonable in order to improve the balance of residents to jobs and to avoid dispersing or slowing down the development of existing office areas . Major office development is not allowed on sites directly adjacent to the waterfront. These sites are designated for alternative visitor-oriented hotel or other commercial development that: provide more 24-hour activity on the waterfront; enhance and compliment the Trade and Convention Centre activities; and reinforce city and regional tourism growth objectives. In the Coal Harbour development the office precinct should extend towards the waters edge to create a non-residential prestige environment . 2  Source: City of Vancouver Planning Department and Coal Harbour Policy Statement (Sept 1990) and False Creek Policy Broadsheets (Aug 1989).  This will include such features as plazas, water parks, tidal pools, floating walkways, waterfalls, grand staircases, marinas, a system of parks, open spaces and lookouts; and abundant public art. Downzoning office areas of the city will decrease the total office development potential so that there will be no net increase in office space due to the Pacific Place and Coal Harbour office developments.  2  APPENDIX 7 - PACIFIC PLACE, COAL HARBOUR & BAYSHORE GARDENS DATA  280  Table 23 P O L I C Y BROADSHEETS A N D ODP DESIGN GUIDELINES  Integrating with the City and Use of Streets as an Organizing Device - Developments should integrate with adjacent neighbourhoods by extending existing street patterns and neighbourhood character. Streets should "create a harmonious whole for the down-town core based on the historical city pattern". Develop a high quality streetscape; street and sidewalk treatments, street furniture, plantings, and walkways, should conform to the overall concept (Johnson, Planning Action news, May 1992, 5). Maintain the Sense of a Diverse Waterfront and Build on the Setting - Maintain and enhance the special characteristics of the setting and the historical significance as maritime and rail centres; retain maritime and rail artifacts and activities . The development must preserve and maximize views.In Coal Harbour the design must ensure that the commercial ambience of the site reflects a marine character and reinforces the atmosphere of the 'working small boat harbour'. 3  Create Lively and Distinctive Places - Open spaces are planned and designed to be identifiable, lively and at a scale that is comfortable to pedestrians. Focal points/activity zones will be used to animate the areas . 4  Create Neighbourhoods for all Age Groups and Incomes Neighbourhoods will be designed to have distinctive identities, defined edges, gathering and activity places a variety of housing . A full range of public and community amenities will be provided to create a true feeling of neighbourhood as a result "the inhuman scale of massive redevelopment projects in the past, will not be transported to Vancouver" (Johnson, 6). A sense of safety and security should be fostered. 5  Source: City of Vancouver Planning Department: False Creek ODP and Coal Harbour ODP. False Creek Policy Broadsheets (August 1989), and Coal Harbour Policy Statement. (September 1990).  In False Creek parts of the original shoreline will be represented with markers. In Coal Harbour the "scruffy" waterfront feeling will be maintained by retaining existing boatyards, marine facilities and seaplane moorings. Historical art pieces will also be retained including several rail and locomotive displays. In Pacific Place the old CPR Roundhouse will be retained and incorporated as a community facility. These zones will include public art, fountains, landscaping, lookouts, piers and bridges, floating homes, restaurants and festival boat race courses, inter-tidal reefs that will provide fish habitat and observation opportunity.  4  Housing types will include family and non-family housing, seniors and social housing, live-aboards and floating homes. This will allow for a mix of age and income groups. Housing design will range from low-rises lining the waterfront, terraced mid-rises stepping back from the waterfront and slim towers allowing for views, sunlight and access.  5  APPENDIX 7 - PACIFIC PLACE, COAL HARBOUR & BAYSHORE GARDENS DATA  Table 24 PACIFIC P L A C E C O M M U N I T Y FACILITIES  FACILITY/BENEFIT  281  6  COST (lOOO's)  43 acres of landscaped parks, civic plazas and 3 km of waterfront walkways Two K-7 community schools one with community space and gymnasium I. V. Gym and Multi-purpose facility for community activity  $1,260,000  A community centre plus gymnasium  $6,600,000  8 day care facilities with outdoor playgrounds  $10,120,000  An after school care centre  $300,000  Branch library contributions  $700,000  A field house Public Art Program  $8,000,000  3 marinas with 380 berths 1700 social housing units  $29,900,000  Cost sharing for a salt water pumping station  $1,500,000  Improvements to inter-modal transportation connections and to improve cycle and pedestrian paths  $8,000,000  Source: Vancouver Planning Dept: Major Projects Fact Sheet and False Creek Planning News Vol 2 No 1 Jan 1990.  The developer will be responsible for providing sites for the schools; one-half the costs of constructing the fully finished library; and all fully furnished facilities for the remainder all at no cost to the City or school board. In addition, the developer will provide cash in-lieu-of parking to upgrade a pedestrian, bicycle, transit network to downtown.  APPENDIX 7 - PACIFIC PLACE, COAL HARBOUR & BAYSHORE GARDENS DATA  282  Table 25 COAL HARBOUR AND BAYSHORE GARDENS COMMUNITY FACILITIES COST  FACILITY/BENEFIT A waterfront performing art centre with a 1500 seat lyric hall and a 350 seat studio theatre .  $7,500,000  A community centre and gymnasium;  $2,033,000  7  22 acres of landscaped park space, two public plazas and a 1.5 km pedestrian promenade Site for a K-7 elementary school with a gymnasium and 2.35 acre adjacent park and construction contribution  $300,000  5 daycare facilities with outdoor play areas.  $5,885,000  Out-of-school care facility with outdoor playgrounds.  $335,000  Payment in-lieu-of for library services  $255,000  A public health facility. 3 marinas with over 600 berths for charter boats and recreational craft; Public Art Program  $4,000,000  566 units of social housing.  $15,100,000  Contribution for Salt water pumping stations  $1,600,000  Police Boat Moorage  $200,000  Source:Vancouver Planning Dept.: Major Projects Fact Sheet  In addition to providing the site Marathon will make a $7 million contribution towards the construction costs and also contributed $500,000 for the initial study.  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items