1.0 Introduction
Brisbane, currently home to 2.5 million residents, is one of the fastest-growing regions in Australia. Its surging population demands creative infrastructure and transport networks; urban planners must incorporate techniques to avoid urban sprawl into natural environments whilst maintaining the city’s liveability. This report endeavours to examine the impacts of consistent population growth and provide a feasible and justified recommendation for the development of South Brisbane’s Kurilpa precinct. To assist in the discussion of this redevelopment site, both primary data (in the form of a field trip and photographs) and secondary data (provided by internet research) will be referenced. The planning and construction of Kelvin Grove Urban Village (KGUV) and the success of urban renewal projects in Teneriffe also provide an insight into the far-reaching benefits of effective urban planning.
2.0 Statement of Findings
2.1 Location
Brisbane, Queensland’s capital, is located in the southeast corner of the state. The sprawling metropolitan area spans the Brisbane River Valley from Moreton Bay to the Great Dividing Range. The city is situated on a low-lying floodplain, and its Central Business District (CBD) lies inside a bend of the Brisbane River. Figure 1 (pictured below) demonstrates Brisbane’s location in the South-East Queensland Region.
2.2 Population Growth in Brisbane
Several demographic challenges stem from the consistent rate at which Brisbane’s population is increasing. Through analysis of these demographic patterns, one can determine the impacts of Brisbane’s growth and devise means of mitigating the negative aspects for the future.
In the 2016-17 period, a 2% growth rate was recorded for Brisbane metropolitan area, increasing the city’s population by 48,000 to 2.4 million. This growth represents the city’s fastest progress since 2012-13. 38% of the population change is attributed to overseas migration, 37% to natural growth and 25% to internal migration. As of June 2036, Brisbane’s population is projected to rise to 3,326,533.
While an increasing population delivers many benefits, such as economic growth, ethnic diversity and social opportunities, it is also described by Ken Henry (head of the Treasury) as ‘the biggest challenge to Commonwealth and State governments since Federation’.
Brisbane faces the major demographic challenge of upholding the terms of the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2031, ‘balancing the need for employment growth, while protecting heritage buildings, parks and natural environment, and enhancing lifestyle opportunities.’ Furthermore, the city’s growing population places a heavy strain on its transport networks and public transport services, oftentimes resulting in congestion and economic loss.
The majority of the forecast population growth for the South East Queensland (SEQ) region will occur beyond the Brisbane Local Government Area (LGA). However, as detailed by BCC’s Brisbane Metro Business Case,
Brisbane’s CBD and inner-city precincts will remain the focus of jobs growth for the region, coupled with accommodating increased residential densification… it will be necessary to ensure that the road, public transport and freight networks are equal to the task through timely and judicious investment in urban transport infrastructure.
For Brisbane to exploit the economic advantage of population growth in the future, it must lay a heavy emphasis on its investment in all transport modes.
2.3 Strategies to Address Population Growth
Confronted with the demographic challenge of population growth, the BCC has employed a vast range of strategies over the past 15 years. These approaches have endeavoured to boost the city’s economy and allow its businesses to flourish, whilst also providing an excellent living environment that attracts and retains a talented workforce.
The thriving riverside community of Teneriffe is a prime example of the BCC’s efforts to revitalise outdated or outgrown precincts. This process of gentrification (initiated in 1991) involved the transformation of former industrial waterfront into a largely high-density residential area. The primary images below, sourced from the field trip, illustrate several of Teneriffe’s defining features that establish its high liveability.
Kelvin Grove Urban Village (KGUV), constructed between 2003 and 2006, is a vibrant, master-planned community that also serves to address Brisbane’s population challenges. It demonstrates best practice in sustainable, mixed-use urban development with particular consideration and balance of environmental, social and economic liveability factors.
As illustrated in the image to the right, facilities at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) are easily-accessible, neighbouring KGUV’s town square. As a consequence, the village has a largely student demographic residing in high-density apartment complexes.
On the field trip, multi-purpose developments were observed lining the streets of the town square, as captured by the photographs below.
KGUV’s high density apartment living avoids large costs for land and space, and results in a considerable lack of private car ownership. However, parking is available lining the streets of the town centre for a maximum 4-hour period, and near QUT with a 12-hour limit (costing $1.60). A heavy reliance on the public transport system was also evident on the field trip, with several bus stops in close proximity, each with approximately 10-20 people waiting for public transport. KGUV’s sophisticated and easily-accessible public transport system encourages green-living and connects citizens to a diverse range of facilities in Brisbane CBD (only 3.1km away). The village also provides a friendly walking environment (footpaths are clean, largely devoid of rubbish and often lined with trees and other greenery).
KGUV’s design caters for its demographic, providing infrastructure which supports social and cultural life and encourages citizen engagement. Students benefit from the extensive public transport network and the village’s walkability and connectedness.
3.0 Evaluation
3.1 The Site
The Kurilpa site encompasses twenty-five hectares of north-facing riverfront land and is an urban regeneration area of monumental strategic importance. Currently, the site is characterised as high-density mixed use and includes the Parmalat industrial complex, a precinct Brisbane has long outgrown. The site is heavily connected to the northern side of the Brisbane river via the William Jolly Bridge, the Go Between Bridge, the Merivale Rail Bridge and the Kurilpa Bridge.
The demographics of the area (South Brisbane) are categorised as generally couple families with no children residing in apartment complexes. In 2012, the median age for residents in the region was calculated at 30.4 years.
According to Brisbane City Council (BCC), the Kurilpa site is only a ‘short stroll’ to Brisbane Central Business District (CBD), South Bank, Queensland’s cultural precinct, Suncorp Stadium and West End. Figures 1 and 2 below illustrate Kurilpa’s redevelopment area and its proximity to many inner-city riverside destinations.
3.2 Proposals
The Kurilpa site offers the means to create an urban development of potentially city-shaping significance. In transforming this former industrial precinct, two potential options are viable:
Option 1: The development of a new residential district
Option 2: The extension of the Southbank Parklands into the area
Option 1 involves the housing of 8000 people in multi-level apartment complexes. A few areas of public greenspace would dot the site, and a new boardwalk would line the river frontage, weaving through mangroves to provide a natural setting. This option would integrate mixed-use developments, with shops and restaurants occupying the ground floor of apartment buildings. Furthermore, the construction of a CityCat terminal would improve Kurilpa’s existing means of travel. This development plans to remove all current industrial infrastructure. Costing $3 billion, this proposal would require three years to complete.
In the second strategy, an additional five hectares of public parkland would extend the greenspaces currently offered by Southbank. A process of urban consolidation would renew Kurilpa’s industrial buildings, converting them into restaurants, shops and an Indigenous museum. A public pathway, lining the riverfront, would serve to connect Southbank to suburbs in the west. Option 2 would require two years of construction and an investment of $1 billion.
In evaluating the effectiveness of each strategy, their prospective economic, environmental and social impacts will be considered.
3.3 Evaluation of Proposals
By virtue of its location, a new residential area in Kurilpa (Option 1) has the potential to emerge as a vibrant inner-city community. The successful redevelopment of industrial waterfront land at Teneriffe provides reassurance as to the potential economic and social benefits of a similar proposal in Kurilpa.
In terms of transport, a new development would increase the number of connections to the river. The construction of the CityCat terminal encourages the use of public transport and thus mitigates the harmful environmental factors associated with the use of a private car.
Furthermore, the capacity of the proposed residential area would assist greatly in housing South Brisbane’s growing population, and, in doing so, reap the economic benefits of an increased workforce.
As detailed in section 2.2, the spatial distribution of employment is such that many jobs (particularly higher-skill, higher-paying jobs) are centralising in inner-city areas. Figure 3 below demonstrates the projected distribution of employment growth in Brisbane’s top economic precincts over the next 20 years.
At the same time, much of Brisbane’s population growth occurs in its outer suburbs. In developing a new residential precinct in Kurilpa, BCC is exploiting the area’s proximity to Brisbane CBD, avoiding the environmental costs of private travel and the economic loss from investment in improved transport services and connectivity to fringe areas. Moreover, providing units close to the city centre increases residential densification, which in turn evades the many negative effects associated with urban sprawl, such as environmental degradation, traffic congestion and urban decay.
Option 1 would not only provide accommodation close to places of employment, but it would create sustainable employment opportunities itself; many jobs, particularly in retail trade industries, would arise from this new development.
However, Brisbane’s apartment construction boom has recently created an oversupply, suggesting that the construction of new apartments would not be economically advised. As detailed by the latest Domain House and Apartment Price Report, Brisbane unit prices are at a four-year low, with a 4.5% drop in 12 months. Domain’s chief economist Andrew Wilson asserts that the supply of apartments in suburbs such as Brisbane’s West End (3.6km from the Kurilpa site) had ‘well and truly outstripped demand – and there was more to come’. Further disadvantages associated with Option 1 are examined in Figure 4 below.
Development Factor Disadvantage
A residential area housing 8000 people would require very high buildings. This is neither environmentally nor socially viable. Such a scheme may not satisfy the 15-storey height limit of the South Brisbane Riverside Neighbourhood Plan and/or would clash with community expectations.
Multi-level apartment complexes would include very little public parkland. A lack of greenspace is detrimental to the environment and detracts from the area’s liveability.
This strategy plans for an influx of 8000 residents but does not involve a traffic management scheme or invest in local road upgrades. This proposal would greatly increase activity along the Kurilpa site, inevitably leading to congested traffic. Poorly-planned communities result in a lack of accessibility and the environmental and economic disadvantages associated with congestion.
The Kurilpa peninsular is a floodplain. This residential strategy fails to address the risk of serious flooding as seen in the 2011 floods.
Urban development leads to major environmental change. In constructing this development, natural ecosystems will face destruction and degradation, threatening biodiversity.
Both public schools in the local area (Brisbane State High and West End State School) are over capacity. According to Kurilpa Futures, ‘the previous state government has sold every piece of surplus Education Queensland land in the South Brisbane area. This means there is no room for schools to expand to accommodate additional residents included in development in the Kurilpa peninsular’.
Development will see a large change in real estate prices. A decrease in housing affordability will significantly affect the ability of working-class citizens to remain in the area. According to the Queensland Government, the challenge for Brisbane is to ‘ensure an efficient supply of residential land… that can provide a range of housing choices to meet the widening spectrum of needs and desires of the community’. Development in Kurilpa must address economic inequalities.
Kurilpa offers tremendous opportunity to seamlessly expand Brisbane’s beloved Southbank Parklands. An integrated network of public greenspaces has a significant contribution to the urban fabric, providing far-reaching environmental and social benefits. As detailed by BCC in its Long Term Infrastructure Plan, ‘Green space contributes to the attractiveness and functionality of the city,’ whilst also offering ‘appropriate buffers between business/industry uses and residential areas.’
The extended parklands would be an escape from the frenetic pace of city living, where locals and visitors alike could relax and enjoy a delightful, natural setting in an urban environment. As evidenced by Brisbane’s New Farm Park (pictured below), public spaces offer residents fresh air, shade and a range of sporting, cultural and recreational activities. Parklands also serve as habitation and vegetation for wildlife, contributing to environmental and ecological sustainability.
It is anticipated that the Indigenous museum aspect of this development strategy would be met with strong community support. Local Murri elders have been requesting an Aboriginal Cultural Centre for many years; respectful infrastructure appreciating Aboriginal sovereignty would become a cultural attraction for the region.
In this proposal, the public riverside walkway links people, places and goods in Southbank to suburbs in the west, improving the area’s connectedness and liveability. At the same time, a riverfront pathway promotes walking, cycling, and other green means of transportation.
Kurilpa’s infrastructure would foster cultural activity and community interaction, and, due to its social attractiveness, generate considerable economy from shops and restaurants. However, as illustrated by Figure 5 below, Option 2 has several negative consequences for a variety of demographics and community groups.
3.4 Decision
Considered analysis of each proposal against the criteria has revealed that the extension of the Southbank parklands is the most practical development strategy for the Kurilpa precinct. While Option 1 would assist in housing Brisbane’s workforce and growing population, the presence of public parklands and greenspace holds intrinsic value and contributes significantly to the urban fabric.
Although employment opportunities largely drive a city’s influx of new residents, environmental quality and lifestyle are paramount to citizens’ decisions to remain in the region. As detailed in the BCC’s 2012-2031 Economic Development Plan, ‘the immediate challenge for Brisbane is to ensure that this opportunity is used to build the city economy and its businesses while also providing the high-quality living environment that will attract and retain a talented workforce’. In extending the Southbank parklands, BCC is enhancing a valuable asset – Brisbane’s presence of innovative and inclusive public spaces that enrich resident lifestyles and heighten liveability. Furthermore, while the construction of an urban development destroys ecosystems and threatens biodiversity, parklands encourage the natural environment to flourish.
In the short term, it would seem economically advantageous to select Option 1; in this way, 8,000 of Brisbane’s forecast workforce would have accommodation near the CBD. This strategy also alleviates the investment in an improved transport system that would be necessary if those workers were to commute daily. However, if one was to consider long-term effects, these benefits become obsolete. Brisbane is undoubtedly experiencing considerable population growth and requires means to address this, although the city’s apartment oversupply suggests that the development of multi-level apartment complexes at Kurilpa would lead to a significant loss of economy. In the future, as Brisbane expands to accommodate its predicted population, its treasured greenspaces will lessen in frequency and sufficiency. The city’s liveability will rely more on the presence of diverse and widely-distributed greenspace than the proximity of accommodation to employment. As such, Option 2 will provide public space that satisfies the needs of a large population.
Although a park space does not tend to return as much revenue as an apartment complex, the extended parklands, as a tourist attraction, will reap considerable economy through the convenience and popularity of its shops and restaurants. Greenspace networks support future residential, commercial and industrial development, which leads to further economic benefits. Moreover, the $2 billion saved by selecting Option 2 could be directed to improving transport services and connecting communities that will inevitably see development to house Brisbane’s population in the future.
Facing similar development plans to the residential strategy in early 2015, citizens from the Kurilpa and wider Brisbane area banded together in protest. They formed the Kurilpa Futures Group (KFG), with the aim of ‘putting people and communities before developers in the planning for the Kurilpa area’. The KFG highly opposed the construction of a new urban development, instead advocating ‘for a planning process that genuinely consults with the people of Brisbane, to ensure that any proposed plan has people, the built and natural environment at its heart’. Option 1 would not be met with public support as evidenced by the formation of the KFG. The wider community believes that the growth of a healthy population necessitates an accompanying growth in services, parkland and public space – a requirement satisfied by the extension of Southbank.
While Option 2 plans to repurpose the industrial buildings, Option 1 involves their destruction. I could discuss the economic and social benefits of renewal (e.g. preserving identity of neighbourhood) as opposed to the development of new structures? I am just worried about word count!!
4.0 Conclusion
The demand for infrastructure to accommodate Brisbane’s population growth has progressively reduced greenspace in the past. As Brisbane grows and consolidates, the need for an established network of greenspace increases also, functioning as an integral aspect of the city’s liveability and character. While new apartment complexes would assist in addressing Brisbane’s demographic challenges, this strategy simply alleviates current issues rather than providing effective solutions for Brisbane’s future. It is in the best interest of the BCC to extend the Southbank parklands into the Kurilpa precinct for the benefit of Brisbane’s economy, its environment and its people.
2018-8-25-1535171709