Urban design in central Sydney 1945–2002: Laissez-Faire and discretionary traditions in the accidental city

This paper explores the laissez faire and discretionary traditions adopted for development control in Central Sydney over the last half century. It focuses upon the design dimension of control, and the transition from a largely design agnostic system up until 1988, to the serious pursuit of design excellence by 2000. Six eras of design/development control are identified, consistent with particular market conditions of boom and bust, and with particular political regimes at State and City levels. The constant tensions between State Government and City Council, and the interventions of state advisory committees and development agencies, Tribunals and Courts are explored as the pursuit of design quality moved from being a perceived barrier to economic growth to a pre-requisite for global competitiveness in the pursuit of international investment and tourism. These tensions have given rise to the description of Central Sydney as ‘the Accidental City’. By contrast, the objective of current policy is to consistently achieve ‘the well-mannered and iconic’ in architecture and urban design. ing with the regulation of building height by the State in 1912, the Councilʹs development approval powers have been severely curtailed by State committees and development agencies, by two suspensions of the Council, and more recently (1989) by the establishment of a joint State-Council committee to assess major development applications. The creation of a ‘negotiation syndrome’ in control is explained along with the ‘forum shopping’ by developers as they sought to maximise their floor space allowances, and pursue the floor space bonuses introduced in 1971. The city vacillated between administrative and discretionary control systems, but the latter consistently prevailed, even through to the present. sultant patterns of development have done much to destroy the Cityʹs fine 19th Century architectural heritage and the quality of its public realm, and are a denial of the cityʹs spectacular setting. Ironically it was the State Government that first recognised the need for better quality design in the Darling Harbour redevelopment and other Bicentenary projects, and who first established design principles that could operate city wide in the 1988 Strategy. But the joint State-City planning committee found it difficult to develop the necessary statutory plan to create an effective planning framework until 1993, though its scrutiny of major applications improved significantly. 991 onwards a new Independent Mayor, working under significant State imposed constraints, drove the pre 2000 Olympics planning agenda, placing an increasing emphasis on urban design. Major policy developments in a revised Statutory Local Environment Plan, backed by Heritage and Development Control (guidance) plans, set a more design informed agenda. Visions of the ‘Living City’ were driven by over-generous residential and hotel bonuses that undermined design quality but revitalised city life. An ‘Accessible City’ vision was driven forward by a major capital programme of civic space and street improvements. The final piece of the jigsaw was the Mayorʹs invention of a design excellence process that introduces design competitions into all major development projects, and seems to be consistently improving design quality in the City. ons are raised as to whether this policy transformation is evidence of a ‘design fetish’ perceived to be characteristic of neo-liberal planning regimes in Australia and Anglo America. A more generous interpretation of recent events is presented, and a positive assessment made of the recent achievements. Even if Sydneyʹs design review system, when tested against internationally derived criteria, is found wanting in many areas, there has been progress away from the ‘Accidental City’ to a much more sophisticated approach to design in a city whose setting, and new economy, demands it.