How do you create a WaterSmart Liveable City? Street, Brisbane QLD e2designlab, Level 1, 599 Brunswick Street, New Farm QLD 4005

Transcription

1 How do you create a WaterSmart Liveable City? Kieron Beardmore 1, Kim Markwell 2, Cathryn Chatburn 3 and Peter Breen 4 1 Water Resources Branch, Brisbane City Council, Level 8 Brisbane Square, 8/266 George Street, Brisbane QLD e2designlab, Level 1, 599 Brunswick Street, New Farm QLD Design+Planning, AECOM, 8/540 Wickham Street, Fortitude Valley QLD Design+Planning, AECOM, 45/80 Collins Street, Melbourne VIC 3000 Corresponding Authors: Kim Markwell kim@e2designlab.com.au & Kieron Beardmore Kieron.Beardmore@brisbane.qld.gov.au Paper Presented at the Planning Institute of Australia 2012 National Congress / 29 April 2 May 2012 / Adelaide, South Australia 1

2 Abstract Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) is becoming a commonly used term amongst the planning, design and engineering disciplines. This familiarity has been encouraged by legislation in Queensland, including building codes for water conservation, planning policies for the management of urban stormwater and requirements for local Councils to have Total Water Cycle Management (TWCM) plans. However, despite this increasing awareness, many on-ground examples of the application of WSUD fall short of the desired integration of urban planning with sustainable management of the urban water cycle and therefore fall short of realising the potential to create a WaterSmart Liveable City. This paper explores this disconnect between intent, policy and delivery of WSUD and WaterSmart Liveable Cities; and seeks to present a series of initiatives that respond to the diversity and scale of opportunity in our urban settlements. KEYWORDS: Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD), WaterSmart, Liveability, Total Water Cycle Management (TWCM) What is a WaterSmart Liveable City? A WaterSmart Liveable City is a city which sustainably manages water to help create a liveable place for its residents. To provide further clarity to this definition, the terms sustainable water management and liveable city must be understood. Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) and Water Sensitive Cities (WSC) are two common terms used to describe the sustainable management of water in our cities. The Stormwater Management in a Water Sensitive City Blueprint 2011 (Wong et al, 2011) identifies WSUD as the process and the Water Sensitive Cities as the outcome. WSUD was defined in the Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Water Initiative as the integration of urban planning with the management, protection and conservation of the urban water cycle that ensures that urban water management is sensitive to natural hydrological and ecological processes (COAG, 2004). Importantly, it aims to ensure that the planning and design of urban areas sustainably integrates urban design and water management principles as part of the development process. This approach seeks to assist in the creation of Water Sensitive Cities, cities that provide ecosystem services, flexibility in water supply and demand and support water sensitive communities. 2

3 The creation of Water Sensitive Cities involves significant departure from conventional urban water management approaches, requiring all urban infrastructure and services to be delivered through a partnership approach between urban planners, the water sector and others to meet the sustainability and liveability objectives set by the community (Binney et al, 2010; Wong et al, 2011). The term Liveable Cities is now commonly used to describe a future vision of our cities, and is largely linked to one s own aspirations, perceptions and needs. The term is broad and suggests the realisation of an urban environment that extends beyond just accommodating water management as hard infrastructure. It encompasses an approach that harnesses the value and opportunity of the key elements of our urban environments; buildings, infrastructure and landscape to create settlements that respond to the needs of current and future generations, including economic, social and environmental values. All cities strive to be the most liveable what this term means, how it is to be applied and how it is measured is often difficult to determine. Arguably, one of the key liveability goals is about creating cities that are pleasant to live in, that are attractive, healthy, vibrant and creative, and that create a sense of place and well-being for residents. The Australian National Urban Policy Our Cities, Out Future (DIT, 2011) and Creating Places for People An Urban Design Protocol for Australian Cities (2011) both identify the close link between productivity, sustainability, liveability and government in creating cities of the future. The International Water Association (IWA) proposes a number of key principles for the creation of future cities (Binney et al., 2010). A number of these are based on the close connection between water and the creation of sustainable, liveable cities including: Principle 1: Cities will continue to grow in population but will be increasingly liveable. A feature of cities will be more interconnected communities. This recognises that people value a liveable city that provides the amenity and space to maintain local connections and healthy communities. Principle 2- Sustainable cities will combine a compact footprint with sustainability and liveability. This recognises the need to match higher density living with green urban design and by linking spaces to provide the ability to easily connect with other parts of the city. Water sensitive cities will be greener and therefore cooler, and healthier places to live in. Principle 3: Cities will be resource neutral or generative, combining 3

4 infrastructure and building design which will harmonise with the broader environment. Cities will also be designed to operate in harmony with the broader environment. For example, cities will release water to the environment consistent with natural environmental flow patterns. Brisbane City Council s WaterSmart Strategy (2010) builds upon the Water Sensitive Cities model and has deliberately placed an increasing emphasis on the creation of a welldesigned, sub-tropical city which reflects the liveability vision for this city as identified by its residents in Living in Brisbane 2026 (BCC). A WaterSmart City is defined by the strategy as a city which recognises the multiple benefits and values of water to make Brisbane Australia s most liveable and sustainable city (BCC, 2010). It identifies 4 main goals for the future of Brisbane: 1. Water smart community A community that is connected to water, participates in decision making and takes action to manage water sustainably. 2. Well-designed subtropical city Designing and reorienting our city with water in mind. 3. A healthy river and bay Improving the health and resilience of our local waterways, the Brisbane River and Moreton Bay. 4. Sustainable water use Sustainably managing our water, ensuring we have what we need now and for future generations. These goals aim to ensure that water and waterways are determining factors in the design of Brisbane s future urban form, creating a city that orientates its built form to take advantage of its waterways and open spaces. Combining water and waterways (our blue infrastructure) with green infrastructure (parklands, shaded streets, green roofs and walls, swales, bioretention and wetlands) not only manages urban water and cools urban areas through microclimate management (evapotranspiration and shade), but creates urban spaces where the community can connect, relax and play. These design directives seek to create a strong sense of place and well-being, leading to healthier communities. What planning policy and guidelines currently support the creation of a WaterSmart Liveable City? Sustainable management of urban water involves a number of elements, including water conservation, waste water minimisation and stormwater management. It can mean a range of things to different professions: 4

5 designers providing the space and opportunities for water management initiatives embedded in urban planning and architecture, engineers providing the integration of the water management systems, and scientists providing the knowledge for new initiatives and the criteria for the protection and enhancement of urban ecosystems. The focus and interpretation of urban water management in different states and cities also differs, depending on the knowledge base of the professional community, the current climatic conditions and public opinion. The past management of water in Australia can be linked to socio-political drivers and service delivery requirements; the requirement for reliable water supplies to flood protection for urban areas (Brown et al., 2008). Figure 1 shows this urban water management transition and outlines what would be required for the transition to a Water Sensitive City. Figure 1 Transition of urban water management towards water sensitive cities (Brown et al., 2008) WSUD is commonly referenced in various state and federal government policies and guidelines. Specific policy and legislation requirements however tend to focus on water conservation and stormwater management objectives and measures, and neglect the urban design and broader integrated water cycle management outcomes within WSUD. In Queensland, the following policy and legislation exist to support the management of urban water for the protection of receiving environments: Queensland Development Code (DLGP) identifies water savings targets and alternative water requirements for buildings State Planning Policy for Healthy Waters 2010 (DERM) identifies 5

6 stormwater quality and quantity requirements for urban developments Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 (DERM) requires all local Councils in South East Queensland (SEQ) to develop and implement TWCM plans Although binding targets will assist in the application of WSUD, and the delivery of WaterSmart Liveable Cities, these requirements alone only focus on part of the story. The South East Queensland (SEQ) Healthy Waterways Partnership (the Partnership) Water by Design Program was established to assist governments and the development industry to deliver successful WSUD outcomes through the development of guidelines and training programs. Many of these technical guidelines are referred to within SEQ local council policies and planning codes, including the MUSIC Modelling Guidelines (2010) and the WSUD Technical Design Guidelines for SEQ (2006). Again, many of these guidelines are specifically focused on stormwater treatment devices rather than the entire water management cycle which is the original intent of WSUD. The Partnership s Concept Design Guidelines for WSUD (2009) were developed to assist in the successful integration of all elements of WSUD into the early planning and design of urban developments. While many of the other technical guidelines are tailored to water engineers, the Concept Design Guidelines for WSUD is tailored to all disciplines required to deliver WaterSmart Liveable Cities (planning, urban design, landscape architecture, engineering and ecology). Notwithstanding, this guideline focuses specifically on greenfield development, providing limited guidance for infill development. A number of local councils, research and industrial groups are pursuing a wider agenda beyond stormwater management, water supply and flood management, such as Brisbane City Council s WaterSmart Strategy (2010), the National Water Sensitive Cities CRC program and other cities such as Melbourne s Living Melbourne, Living Victoria Roadmap (DSE, 2011). For Brisbane, it means supporting the liveability of Brisbane by managing water sustainable (BCC, 2010). This has been driven by the acknowledgement that the city will require redevelopment and infill of existing urban areas to cater for projected population growth - the South East Queensland Regional Plan provides for an additional dwellings. Most of this growth will be delivered in existing urban areas with redevelopment and infill to cater for at least (88%) of these additional dwellings. This will require creative use of open space and waterways to provide for a variety of uses and multiple benefits, spaces that are cooling, pleasant and provide for recreation while 6

7 treating and reusing water on-site. Waterway corridors will become a key part of Brisbane s open space system and are critical to Brisbane s liveability. The WaterSmart Strategy (BCC, 2010) sets the strategic direction and outlines key actions that will be taken by Council, its partners and the community in managing water sustainably. What could a WaterSmart Liveable City look like? The successful delivery of the WaterSmart Liveable City is dependent on the integration of initiatives that are responsive to the scale (city-wide, precinct, local or house scale), context and urban typologies of a place. Let us explore a number of possible strategies that respond to this range of city typologies. Our Waterways Throughout the city, Brisbane is connected by a large network of waterway corridors with over 800km of local and regional waterways including the Brisbane River and Moreton Bay. Waterways are essential not only for water quality, biodiversity and flood outcomes, but for the economy of the city. However, in highly urbanised environments, its more than this it s about using waterways for wider social and community outcomes in a growing city. Traditionally, these waterways have primarily been seen as flood conveyance devices to move water quickly through clearing, channelization and the straightening of waterways. As the amenity values of these natural corridors suffered from unsympathetic engineered solutions, development turned its back on the lost natural asset of the waterway. Brisbane s waterway corridors are a critical element of Brisbane s liveability, offering a number of functions they provide places for a variety of open public spaces (providing both active and passive recreation), connectivity between key destinations, transport and economic opportunities, food production environments, urban cooling, cultural and spiritual places as well as important habitat for aquatic and terrestrial species and passage for flood conveyance. Arguably, in the past the open space system in Brisbane (and other Australian cities) has been built around a low density city model. As densities increase, park use and design will need to adapt. As Brisbane continues to grow and undergoes rapid densification, the competing need for space will become paramount along with a need to do more with less. Land will be scarce and public space and waterways will need to provide for a variety of users and offer multiple benefits. Waterway corridors will become a key part of Brisbane s open space system and a core element in the city s green infrastructure our blue spines to 7

8 connect the city. Waterway corridors in Melbourne contain some of the most used public open spaces in the city (City of Melbourne, 2011). This is largely the result of associated path- and bike-ways introduced in the many riparian corridors. The planning and design of these new corridors will need to respond to the differing demands of the urban settlements along the waterway if they are to be well integrated and successful. For example, waterways closer to high density major centres present opportunities to become key destinations for the local residents and visitors, providing high amenity connections to the waterway and a range of events and festival spaces, urban commons and community gardens for residents in apartments with limited private spaces of their own. In areas along the waterway with low to medium density housing, demands might focus more on habitat enhancement and protection of the creek, creation of informal parklands for families and the provision of formal recreational spaces with sports fields designed to detain and slow floodwaters and stormwater harvesting facilities to keep them green. Figure 2 Protection and enhancement of waterways through the creation of constructed stormwater treatment wetlands 8

9 Figure 3 Creation of activated waterway corridors in high density urban areas Our Streets The density imperative challenges us to look toward a variety of new types of green and open space to meet the needs of residents, with green space including not just traditional parks, but waterways, plazas, community gardens, bikeways, as well as attractive and safe streets (Griffith University, 2010) Our streets and their associated public footways are significant and under-appreciated assets that currently cover over 50km 2 of Brisbane. They form a significant part of the urban fabric and are often seen as the City s grey infrastructure. Road infrastructure already performs a number of functions; as conveyance devices for cars, pedestrians, services and for stormwater. Unfortunately, their current use and design contribute to urban pollution, community disconnection, and the creation of urban heat islands. As the city grows, the role of streets and the public realm they provide will need to contribute to and extend existing public space. Changing streets from places not traditionally associated with high community activation into key opportunities for community interaction and the safe movement of pedestrians, public transport and cyclists is a key strategy. An improved understanding of the hierarchy of streets, one that better reflects future public realm functions will be able to guide the design of these spaces. For example highly activated urban streets should accommodate minimal traffic and place emphasis on people movement, to link destinations as part of the city s green ribs, be desirable places to linger, 9

10 walk and bike cycle along. Brisbane City Council s new Citywide Streetscape Hierarchy (2011) has been developed to transform streets into more usable spaces, with an emphasis on enhancing pedestrian connections, providing spaces for meeting and increasing shade, amenity and visual quality increase subtropical vegetation to reduce the urban heat island effect and to reinforce Brisbane s distinct character as a subtropical city. It includes the following three street types: Subtropical Boulevards a citywide outcome following arterial and suburban road corridors and delivering significant subtropical tree planting. City Streets normally located in centres with active uses at ground floor; where full width paved surfaces, street trees, furniture and pedestrian lighting are required. Neighbourhood Streets normally in high and medium density residential areas, where a narrower footpath is appropriate and street trees are planted in a turf strip. Throughout Brisbane there are streets which lie on top of old and new urban waterways, from Western Creek in Milton to the aptly named Creek Street in the city centre. Referencing historic water courses, reconnecting residents with their history, enables watercourses to become a key narrative in the design of streets and a key part of our journeys through the city. This may become more pertinent where streets follow overland flow paths of water or old creek systems which have been piped, with bioretention devices integrated in the design and acting a green shoots which signify the water journey along a street, letting people know that the bioretention device is cleaning water that feeds into drainage system which was an old water course which feeds into the river and bay. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, the restoration of Chenggye Cheon River in Seoul has replaced the freeway and is now a major tourist attraction. 10

11 Figure 4 Streets providing multiple outcomes Figure 5 Shaded urban streets incorporating bioretention systems Infill Development & New Public Spaces As cities grow, creeks and rivers are piped creating a network of forgotten waterways. This piping, delivered to the standards of the time, often does not reflect the historic flow patterns of water as it moves down through the system. It is against this backdrop that we find flooding of built-up lowland areas in older parts of cities and in some cases lower order industrial uses in prime parts of our urban areas representing underutilised value both in terms of the fiscal cost of land and contribution to the city. 11

12 The redevelopment of cities offers an opportunity to build a new urban form which not only upgrades infrastructure, but also supports design which respects and orientates development around the these forgotten waterways and makes room for the water (with attended savings on big piped systems), often referred to as daylighting. Designing with water in mind, can support future resilience through the accommodation of flood mitigation, climate change mitigation, improved water quality, and, equally importantly, can create open space destinations for people within adjacent higher density areas. Daylighting waterways can create new urban water plaza s and green squares which can become shaded, cool and activated spaces, contributing to a sense of place and identity. And so a new green infrastructure emerges which recreates forgotten waterways in key destinations, resulting in stepping stone parks along the route of waterways connected by activated green streets. We are arguably in a period of a changing level of service with regard to water management and public realm design. In the future, the design of water management systems will require an integrated approach considering the fit for use management of all water sources in the city. Similarly the design of the public realm will need to satisfy a range of social economic and environmental objectives such as providing active and passive recreation, creating increased economic value to adjacent properties, helping to manage air quality, water quality, and microclimate. Figure 6 The transition to a WaterSmart City for water management and the public realm 12

13 (from Brisbane City Council s WaterSmart Strategy) Figure 7 Infill developments can create urban plazas which incorporate water as key design outcomes Our Suburbs Despite strong planning trends towards densification, large areas of our cities will remain untouched by redevelopment (meeting dwellings targets in Brisbane will only require around 7% of the existing urban footprint). Lower density suburbs will continue to be an important typology within the diverse landscapes of our cities. However, this does not mean that such suburbs cannot become part of a new and exciting urban fabric, creating sustainable suburbs that are part of a new ecosystem service. Lower density areas can contribute significantly as part of a city s overall green space network, providing pervious areas that cool the city, filter stormwater, support food production and provide backyard nature refuges for residents. We can learn to celebrate the burbs and our backyards by supporting rehabilitation and revegetation of overland flow paths to filter and hold back stormwater, encourage raingardens attached to stormwater pipes, houses that incorporate sub-tropical design principles and reduce energy use and wise water use and reuse. For example, public realm 13

14 design and water management use in suburbs has considerable potential for managing the urban heat island effect of the city. This is a new frontier, built upon the success of decreased water use during the drought and people s increasing awareness of catchment scale solutions to flooding and waterway health issues at source. A community that is connected to water, participates in decision making and takes action to manage water sustainably. It supports people s connection to their local waterway through catchment groups, clean-up days and urban bushland or habitat groups. Our suburban roads also have a role to play. Gone are the days of village greens, but our local streets are now key parts of the public realm and should be treated as local connectors that support community use and activation through being safe and shaded. Water again can play a role through stormwater gardens along streets as traffic calming devices, while proving shade and amenity. Figure 8 Suburban streets designed to provide safe and shaded areas 14

15 Figure 9 Backyards sustainably manage water What is currently being delivered in our Cities? Greenfield urban development allows for greater flexibility and ease in master planning and design to enable the successful integration of WSUD to create WaterSmart Liveable Developments, which capture and treat stormwater, reuse treated wastewater, reduce potable water demand, incorporate shaded and safe streets, provide vibrant and diverse open space areas and foster a water sensitive community. However, if urban water is planned and designed as a separate component of the development, and if opportunities not explored and integrated early, poor outcomes are likely. Even though many current examples of stormwater treatment systems meet the legislated water quality requirements, they do not contribute to the full realisation of the WaterSmart Liveable Development. The retrofit of WSUD into existing urban areas as part of infill development can be more difficult and is often seen as an add-on and an inconvenience forced to meet legislative requirements. The problem is often compounded in older urban environments by legacy infrastructure which is often expensive to upgrade or replace, with space and existing service limitations. However, it is even more difficult to achieve any degree of success if consideration of WaterSmart Liveability opportunities is seen as an after-thought, another layer to be added to already space constrained development. It is less difficult if it is an integrated part of the development solutions and the opportunities considered at an early concept design stage and integrated holistically with other requirements. 15

16 Bioretention for example, is a common measure used for stormwater treatment in SEQ as it requires less space to achieve the required water quality targets. Although bioretention systems can provide multiple benefits (cooling, detention, treatment etc) these systems are not ideal for all locations. For example, bioretention systems can be difficult to establish and protect if designed end-of-pipe to accept large volumes of flows from large catchment areas. Therefore the delivery of WaterSmart Liveable Cities needs to recognise that there is not a one size fits all solution and that different outcomes will be suited to differing locations, typologies, scales and future land use requirements, requiring a range of professions to consider the opportunity and solutions as a collective dialogue. What is required to create a Water Smart Liveable City? Rather than simply applying a suite of determined solutions or outputs, such as bioretention systems, greater focus and consideration needs to be given to the overall urban form and project objective. How we achieve the visions illustrated above and how we achieve a WaterSmart Liveable City, across a range of communities, should be our measure of success. We believe a key aspect of the creation of WaterSmart Liveable Cities is to start putting the urban design back into Water Sensitive Urban Design, by ensuring that urban water management is integrated within the built urban form through the use of initiatives such as green infrastructure, multiple use public open space and creation of a sense of place and identity. Often the delivery of urban development is focused on outputs to meet legislative tick boxes and government processes. This is not a good process for achieving good outcomes in terms of innovative design of water and public realm systems. For Councils capital works, budget cycles, performance indicators and quantifiable costs and benefits are all big determinants, sometimes at the expense of qualitative outcomes and integration in our thinking. For Councils, Community Plans required under the Local Government Act, such as Brisbane City Council s Living in Brisbane 2026, are good starting points to drive multiple city-wide outcomes, cascading down to the Corporate Plan level. Achieving integrated design solutions through more detailed Program and Service Planning is a little more challenging. However, if there is any lesson we can take from the sustainability debate over the last 20 years of trying to make sense of it in the real world, it is the need for integrated thinking, irrespective of whether you sit on a balance outcomes or win win side of the sustainability fence. 16

17 Measures that can be used to achieve current water management requirements such as bioretention systems, wetlands and water storages need to be valued for the multiple outcomes and ecosystem services that they can provide so that they are designed as an integrated element of a sustainable urban realm and not in isolation as a simple tick box exercise of compliance. For example green roofs perform the role of a water treatment system but in addition can cool the city, hold back the water thereby reducing pressure on infrastructure and help avoid waterway remediation costs, as well as provide for local food production, reducing carbon footprints and delivering healthier communities. Getting multiple outcomes out of city infrastructure will be critical in future cities where space is at premium and where we need to do more with less. Outcome focused, integrated and multiple outcome based design solutions may require some give and take, and, in some cases, may require different approaches to typical standards of service. For example, from a strict water quality perspective, streetscape bioretention devices are more effective where pollutant load is the greatest, but they may serve wider liveability, shade, cooling and amenity benefits in locations with highly activated community spaces such as multi use centres. Streets from a traffic engineer s perspective may need to meet certain design standard based on a road hierarchy which may not be sympathetic with people orientated streets that provide for activation and their use as a key part of a city open space system. Park planners may be driven by a standard of service which considers useability and quantity standards, viewing parks as full, and may be less driven by multiple outcomes which may mean reducing standards to accommodate WSUD devices, ecological functions, floodplains (with inevitable water-logging) and overland flow paths as an integral part of open space systems. The integrated design challenge is not only retrofitting complex urban spaces, with complex requirements, legacy infrastructure, but also complex contemporary standards of service. It requires buy-in from all involved in the delivery of the WaterSmart Liveable City, from planners, development approvers, economists, urban designers, landscape architects, engineers and ecologists. For a city like Brisbane, despite all the growth pressures only a small portion of the city will be subject to redevelopment and higher past standards of service through installing best practice water sensitive urban design for urban stormwater management outcomes. What of the remaining? Governments alone cannot retrofit the urban environment and new innovative market based instruments, price signals, funding strategies and economic accounting may be required and the complex task of pricing in wider social, amenity and 17

18 environmental benefits, including carbon offsets, to justify future investment beyond traditional WSUD costs and benefits. The need to respond to the growth of the city, climate change, floodplains and overland flow paths presents many opportunities to create new urban paradigms, to redesign the city to work with these challenges and the landscapes in which our city lives, to provide for multiple benefits, to retrofit the city to provide new green and blue spaces for a stronger sense of place and well- being, to make our city more resilient and able to adapt to more extreme events, and for the creative use of water and waterways. We need mechanisms that place emphasis on the outcome being sought and we need to be able to visualise what the outcome we want looks like, as part of our city and in the lives of its communities, to truly understand what the solutions are and how we can deliver them. Examples of Water Smart Liveable City Outcomes There are a number of projects emerging which are being delivered by Brisbane City Council which aim to demonstrate the delivery of WaterSmart Liveable Outcomes. The Norman Creek 2026 Project is taking a whole of catchment approach to urban water resources management, with an investment of over $20M over 4 years. The project aims to transition the Norman Creek Catchment to an exemplar WaterSmart catchment, by implementing Council s WaterSmart Strategy (BCC, 2010) on the ground over a fifteen year investment period. A Vision and Concept Plan was developed for the catchment which captures the community aspirations, ideas and potential opportunities for the catchment. The vision and goals set in this plan have been used to provide a framework and direction for the catchment Master Plan, which is currently being developed. The Master Plan will combine strategic and land use planning, flood plain management, water quality and quantity management, landscape planning, and urban design outcomes in a truly integrated planning framework to meet Council s Water Smart objectives for the catchment. 18

19 Figure 10 Vision and Objectives for the Norman Creek Catchment (from Norman Creek 2026 Vision and Concept Plan, 2011). Brisbane City Council is also developing a Master Plan for the first WaterSmart parkland in the Norman Creek catchment, representing the next important evolution to rejuvenate Brisbane s waterway network to deliver its WaterSmart Strategy (BCC, 2010). The new parkland will replace existing industrial land uses, creating a new parkland space that can help to manage existing flooding issues within an area of urban renewal. The park is being designed to be a focal point for an emerging urban community, as well as supporting Integrated Water Cycle Management opportunities in the precinct, providing flood management and supporting a range of urban space experiences. The project has the potential to offer both the community and visitors to the area an example of sustainable urbanism, where ecological systems form an integral structuring consideration of the urban landscape and its infrastructure. 19

20 Figure 11 First Vision of Brisbane s first WaterSmart Parkland These recent project examples demonstrate that WaterSmart Liveable City outcomes are possible, but they will require a collaborative effort between decision makers, developers, planners, urban designers, architects, landscape architects, economists, engineers and ecologists to deliver these integrated solutions. Conclusion How do you create a WaterSmart Liveable City? This paper proposes new thinking to address the problem. Better collaboration is required for different urban typologies and integrated design approaches that recognise water and waterways are key ingredients in the design of our cities. Collaborative and integrated thinking recognises wider, holistic multiple outcomes beyond traditional urban water management objectives, outcomes that are critical to delivering liveable cities and a new urban paradigm for a WaterSmart Liveable City of the future, outcomes that: Put design and the water cycle back into WSUD Create cities that are designed with water in mind, with water as part of sustainable buildings, sub-tropical design and climate change mitigation and adaptation. See water as part of a new urban form designing with flood risk in mind, to create liveable streets and sustainable suburbs. 20

21 Use water to create new green infrastructure for urban heat island cooling, amenity and passive irrigation, using landscaping as stormwater treatment areas. Use water for multiple benefits, ecosystem services and Place making creating a sense of place and well-being. Support waterways as a key part of Brisbane s open space systems for a connected and liveable city - our blue spines. Re-create our blue spaces (in some cases daylights ), creating destinations around forgotten creeks systems, with high density, high activation, high amenity, vibrant and accessible spaces. Improve access to waterways for a range of passive and active uses. Using waterways to connect to communities including using overland flow paths, waterways and floodplains as public and private open space and active transport corridors. Create a community that is connected to water for social capital building. Disclaimer: The paper links to key directions in Brisbane City Council s WaterSmart Strategy (2010) and current projects but reflects the view of the authors and does not necessarily express the view of the employers. References Australian Government. (2011). Creating Places for People: an urban design protocol for Australian Cities. Available at: PROTOCOLS_1111_WEB_FA2.pdf Binney, P., Donald, A., Elmer, V., Ewert, J., Phillis, O., Skinner, R., and Young, R. (2010). IWA Cities of eth Future Program Spatial Planing and Institutional Reform Discussion Paper for the World Water Congress, September ( the_future) Brisbane City Council. (2010). WaterSmart Strategy. Available at: ment%20and%20waste/4.2%20water/plans_and_projects_watersmart_strategy_full_docu ment.pdf 21

22 Brisbane City Council. Our shared vision living in Brisbane Available at: Brisbane City Council. (2011). Citywide Streetscape Hierarchy. Available at: ning%20and%20building/2.3%20planning%20and%20building%20rules/3.1%20streetscape %20Design%20Guidelines/StreetscapeDesignGuidelines_Citywide_Streetscape_Hierarchy.p df Brown, R., Keath, N., and Wong, T. (2008). Transitioning to Water Sensitive Cities: Historical, Current and Future Transition States, paper submitted to 11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK, City of Melbourne. (2011). City of Melbourne Draft Open Space Strategy planning for future growth. Available at: Leaflet_WEB%20Printable_ pdf Council of Australian Governments (COAG). (2004). Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Water Initiative. Commonwealth of Australia and the Governments of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, signed 25 June Available at: Department of Infrastructure and Transport (DIT). (2011). Our cities, Our future A national urban policy for a productive, sustainable and liveable future. Available at: _Paper_2011.pdf Department of Environmental and Resource Management (DERM). (2010). State Planning Policy 4/10 for Healthy Waters (SPP). Available at: onmental_protection_water_policy/state-planning-policy-healthy-waters.html Department of Environmental and Resource Management (DERM). (2009) Environmental Protection (Water) Policy. Available at: onmental_protection_water_policy/index.html Department of Local Government and Planning (DLGP). (2010). Queensland Development Code. Available at: 22

23 code-current-parts.html Department of Local Government and Planning (DLGP). (2009). South East Queensland Regional Plan Available at: Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE). (2011). Living Melbourne, Living Victoria roadmap. Available at: data/assets/pdf_file/0009/107658/3770_dse_living_victoria _Roadmap_1.3MG.pdf Griffith University. (2010). Green and open space planning for urban consolidation A review of the literature and best practice, Jason Byrne and Neil Sipe, Urban Research Program, Issues Paper 11, March 2010 South East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership. (2006). WSUD Technical Design Guidelines for South East Queensland. Available at: Water by Design. (2009). Concept Design Guidelines for Water Sensitive Urban Design. Available at: Water by Design. (2010). MUSIC Modelling Guidelines. Available at: Wong, T.H.F., Allen, R., Beringer, J., Brown, R.R., Chaudhri, V., Deletid, A., Fletcher, T. D., Gernjak, W., Hodyl, L., Jakob, C., Reeder, M., Tapper, N. and Walsh, C. (2011). Stormwater Management in a Water Sensitive City: Blueprint Victoria: The Centre for Water Sensitive Cities. 23