Prof Duncan Maclennan CBE FRSE University of St Andrews

Transcription

1 Prof Duncan Maclennan CBE FRSE University of St Andrews

2 1. CITIES, CITY POLICY: good, bad or new times? 2. CITY POLICY,BIG OBJECTIVES, OUTCOMES 3. FRAMEWORKS TO MATCH SYSTEMS 4. STRATEGIES, SECTORS AND SPACES 5. IMPROVING PLANNING 6. KNOWLEDGE, IDEAS AND EXCHANGE

3 These are the worst of recent times: Cyclical: Recession, unemployment Structural: Fiscal systems, debt, labour/housing Secular: Ageing and Longevity, Global Warming But for recognition role of cities, oddly better Performance of some cities Assuming not fiscal dumping, localism Cities and geographies in bigger outcomes PLACE AND SPACE EFFECTS ARE OUTCOMES BUT THEY SET STRUCTURES FOR RECURSIVE CHANGE, GEOGRAPHY NOT NEUTRAL AND RISING SALIENCE AS ENERGY COSTS RISE

4 Glaeser s view takes us beyond the Flat Earth of Thomas Friedman.( even if less triumphal) Pattern, density, spatial structure matter in Carbon emissions and sustainable development Clusters in innovation, mismatch in labour market Increased segregation by income, spillovers and costs Good governance, localism and community in good decision taking ALL REQUIRE A PLACE AWARENESS AND SENSITIVE APPROACH IN POLICY MAKING, AND AT MULTIPLE ORDERS/SCALES

5 The real systems of the economy and society Have Geographies of outcomes Are not contained by administrative geographies Are all partly local, metropolitan, global (exogendog) Are varied over space, time, sector Have national to local and reverse recursive Have multi-sectoral influences on outcomes Rent seeking and zero sum games Are market driven as well as state influenced Are sometimes chaotic, always some uncertainty

6 In that context what role for TOP-DOWN SINGLE SECTOR (HEALTH, HOUSING, LAND etc) SINGLE GOVERNMENT ( NATIONAL, REGIONAL) SINGLE ACTOR ( STATE, PRIVATE SECTOR, NON-PROFIT) OR Multi-level, Multi-sector, Multi-Order, Cross- Owner approaches With Emphasis on Cross Municipal functional Areas and Multiple Tools for Achieving Goals (not just LU Regs)

7 Good governance Effective resource Use Fairness Organised delivery and it implies Redefining, Re-Emphasising Role for Spatial Planning and Spatial Management

8 Stress City/Metropolitan ( and nested neighbourhood strategies) are about Vision Overall objectives Sectoral actions ( not just land use to achieve) Spatial Plans to organise and deliver change Underlying Infrastructure Plans Financial Plans Knowledge about choices and the future essential but are plans well connected and organised. Are they real action documents or just a pretty map of abandoned, unfinanced intentions?

9 Not all governments do NEW SPACE THINKING well National Politicians focus on red tape National levels, roles of planners in government In cities is Professional expertise; land use plans or city change Silos of spending, expertise and planning (H v T) Competences, insularities of local governments Ignoring communities Failures to set objectives, obsess with vision Local focus on development control Real challenge at metro is strategic spatial devel planning

10 Evidence base for planning solutions is weak, eg TOD, new urbanism, and densification Ignorance of economic impact, cost benefit? Disregard for delivery Unwillingness to monitor and evaluate Means lack of skills, in strat planning and governance In consequence gives big projects and directives European trend is to see strategic urban policy as core for central agencies and related to financial management and agency coordination. BUT LET ME ILLUSTRATE MORE SAFELY AUSTRALIA

11

12

13

14 Tradition of metro planning and good masterplans (e.g. Melbourne, Adelaide) Now major growth concerns Recognise Impact in Cities, metros Key roles state, but Federal also (cf Canada) Is Infrastructure, related planning up to task Infrastructure Australia, bids (Canadian ICSD Plans) Do infrastructure bids relate to well argued spatial development plans Do they reflect not just local but national needs How can Multiple governments work to improve this

15 acknowledges the breadth and complexity of the issues related to capital city strategic planning systems. primarily rests on critical analysis of an account by each government of its consistency with the nine criteria. Based on the analysis, the council has made graded findings on consistency against each of criteria it is a review of strategic planning, not just statutory planning meaning it looks at infrastructure planning and economic development and other broader issues than the typical planning domains of zoning and approvals that it is a review of planning systems, not just plans meaning it covers institutional and decision-making arrangements as well as strategic planning documents that it is a review of consistency with the criteria, not against performance measures meaning it does not make findings on the results of the system that it is not a review of the policy directions being pursued by governments for example, the review is silent on immigration levels or settlement patterns in Australia.

16

17

18

19

20

21 A key message the panel delivered is that Australia is at a watershed point for its capital cities and their strategic planning. Demographic change, increasing energy costs and the shift to a knowledge economy have changed the assumptions underpinning the shape and development of Australian cities. Strategic planning of capital cities must change accordingly, underlining the importance of COAG s agreement of criteria to re-shape our cities. In the panel's view, this must also include reconsideration of Australia's settlement pattern.

22 The Expert Advisory Panel sees a need for a changed approach to infrastructure planning and financing investment must be strategic, to both overcome a lack of investment in recent decades and to manage infrastructure provision over the medium and long term. Key areas of further effort it has identified in reviewing capital city strategic planning systems are: improved planning and provision for freight transport and intermodal networks to support forecast port and airport capacity and growth in the freight task greater emphasis on public transport to combat congestion and address social inclusion by integrating transport planning with land use decisions improved project and cost-benefit analysis frameworks that take greater account of externalities and do not unduly discount future benefits.

23 In criterion four, COAG has required capital city strategic planning systems to address a specific set of nationallysignificant policy issues. Though many of these issues are not traditionally in the domain of planning, they are crucial to the future competitiveness, productivity, sustainability and liveability of capital cities and COAG s recognition of them is important. None of the capital city strategic planning systems has been found consistent with criterion four. The Expert Advisory Panel has highlighted some particular issues that have not received an adequate response from governments: demographic change which has implications for the nature, distribution and diversity of housing stock, for transport and other public services, and for labour market participation housing affordability which remains a significant concern in need of an evidence-based and collaborative response from governments social inclusion the spatial implications of which are poorly analysed and understood.

24 The panel also highlighted criterion nine implementation, as an issue for governments. While the elements of criterion nine are in place in some systems, consistency does not guarantee successful policy outcomes, or that projects will be seen through to completion.

25 The panel notes that to meet these challenges governments need to reflect on what drives change in cities and find ways to improve policy outcomes and to measure successful implementation, to assess how capital cities are really going against the COAG criteria for cities.

26 The panel consider that this process have shown there is significant value in collaboration by governments on planning capital cities. No one government or sphere of government holds all the policy responsibilities or expertise on strategic planning. NOR DOES ANY UNIVERSITY, FOR THAT MATTER!

27 To handle the complexity of strategic planning of cities requires a sound evidence base. Three areas for further work in this field were identified: A need to build the information base understand what information is readily available, develop greater access to administrative data and smart systems. Supporting sound policy evaluation and review Based on a better information base improve evidence-based policy analysis and review regarding the nationally-significant policy issues in cities. Measuring progress There is a case for greater knowledge sharing on these systems across governments to improve the credibility of Australian city strategic planning systems and provide a framework for evidence-based policy interventions COAG should focus continuous improvement efforts through: collaboration by governments to improve the information base for Australian cities a commitment to evidence-based policy interventions in cities clear frameworks for measuring progress and monitoring

28 Australian Review published on Monday Scotland making progress, England in some turmoil Scottish Cities Knowledge Centre Good Luck, Find me at