Public living rooms at the financial and urban interface

How public places are funded, designed and delivered continues to be a complex and often polarizing conversation. It’s a topic close to the hearts of urban practitioners, who wish to contribute to cities that are equitable, inspiring and inclusive. The narrative of “public versus private” has been perpetuated over time by a globalized property market, contributing to a perception that the public good is almost always exclusive to private interests. However, we are increasingly recognizing that the interconnectedness between policy, finance, markets, capability, ecologies, community and design requires a nuanced and integrated approach to funding and designing future places, whether public or private.

As organizations and investors lean further into their environmental, social and governance (ESG) goals, there is growing impetus to take new learnings and holistic strategies into the real world. This embedding of more refined design, regenerative urbanism and a willingness to demonstrate responsible approaches beyond the built form is not only good for people and planet, but it will position companies to deliver long-term value to stakeholders who are calling for more action on climate and social benefit. Plus, it will help to satisfy the growing number of citizens who are seeking to move away from mass consumption toward ecologically conscious behaviours, creating a wave of sentiment that is shifting investment decision-making at the largest scale. Designers have the capacity to shape this trajectory, and deliver interconnected public benefit through urban projects, working at every scale.

Investment in public urban places – the city’s social and ecological connective tissue – has never been more critical. Post-pandemic, and alongside the rapid growth of our major cities, issues of social isolation and physical and mental health have come into sharp focus. Research by the World Economic Forum suggests that overcrowded environments can increase loneliness by up to 38 percent; in contrast, the feeling of being with people who share our values and who make us feel welcome was associated with a 21 percent decrease in loneliness. Further, people were 28 percent less likely to feel lonely when their urban settings included natural features such as trees and softscapes.¹

In addition, our regions face ongoing environmental and economic disruption. These complex challenges can only be effectively tackled collectively. A collaborative approach across industry, investment and knowledge bases will be critical to supporting the future resilience of places and economies. This is a technical, financial, cultural and experiential design brief. It is also an opportunity to further engage in the Indigenizing of design in our cities, creating policy and places in collaboration with First Peoples.

There are well established formats for the funding and delivery of major public infrastructure. These can be simplified into three categories: 100-percent government-funded and owned projects, public-private partnerships (PPPs) and privately owned public space (POPS). Government-funded projects, inclusive of all citizens and managed in perpetuity, have consistently presented a compelling opportunity to create civic outcomes at scale. However, Australian private urban development projects far outweigh their public counter-parts. Land development and subdivision in Australia was worth $32 billion in 2022 alone – more than three times its value 10 years ago.² Instead of privatizing public spaces, then, is there potential in making private projects more public?

There is merit in exploring more granular incentives and co-funding models to create new “public living rooms” at this financial and urban interface, particularly in times where public funding is prioritized to maximize long-term benefit, and in a context of increasing government debt³ and a less predictable economic climate. These models, which demonstrate a form of “tactical financing” whereby government and developer collaborate on a project-specific basis to invest in public benefit, might reinforce rather than detract from the public experience provided by government-owned and -managed projects. They are predominantly situated at the ground plane – the horizontal continuum of open space, streetscapes, mixed-use tenancies, commercial and fine-grain interfaces. They constitute potential “third places,”⁴ with a broad spectrum of uses relative to their local context and culture, where people are free to socialize, engage in free programs, enjoy hospitality, retail, entertainment and learning experiences, or simply be themselves in the public realm.

There are many global precedents where industry and authorities have convened to deliver public amenity in various policy contexts, to the benefit of both the local neighbourhood and the city. New York City Planning Commission’s 1961 Zoning Resolution laid the foundations for controls “aimed at substance and not form … [which] offer greater freedom to the architect and give the builder added incentives through bonuses to provide structures with clean lines, open plazas and attractive arcades.”⁵ This substance is reflected at Domino Park on Brooklyn’s waterfront, which is certified under the Waterfront Edge Design Guidelines, a ratings system designed to make waterfronts “more resilient, environmentally healthy, accessible, and equitable.”⁶ Through this mechanism, authorities permit a proportionately larger developed floor area ratio or building height in return for significant investment in public benefit. The five-acre Domino Park was designed by James Corner Field Operations (JCFO)and built by developer Two Trees for US$50 million. To be maintained by the developer, as part of Shop Architects’ masterplan for the Domino Sugar Refinery mega-redevelopment, its landscape includes oyster restoration research stations, and native planting to reduce stormwater runoff and act as a “sponge” against major flood events. It has had more than four million visitors since its opening in mid-2018.⁷ “While public-private partnerships have become more common in New York City, Domino Park remains a marvel,” said JCFO senior principal Lisa Tziona Switkin in a press release. “The developer surpassed mandated minimum requirements for public waterfront access and open space; built the park first; paid for all of the capital costs and pays for all the ongoing park maintenance, operations and programming; and cares deeply about quality and character of the open space and that it be welcoming for all.”

A US project with a different funding model is Riverwalk on Chicago’s CBD waterfront, a design led by Carol Ross Barney of Ross Barney Architects and Sasaki. Here, local government used a US$100-million federal loan to build a 400-metre-long civic space, opting to repay the loan by developing commercial retail tenancies that it owns, curates and manages. This direct revenue stream, which has enabled an iconic city-making project with clear definition between retail and public zones, is paying back the build and maintenance costs faster than originally expected.⁸ The Riverwalk incorporates urban innovations sensitive to riparian ecologies and climate risks alongside large-scale art, entertainment and water recreation.

Closer to home, Australian cities have been prototyping models of their own in the delivery of “public living rooms” through private funding, often in what could almost be described as infill projects between major public works. These projects have a “stitching” effect and add to local amenity, safety, economies, identity and design quality. In every case, investment is underpinned by private developers who understand that uplifting the public realm is critical to the success of their precincts. At the centre of this is an investment in design, materials and attention to detail across all scales and disciplines, from masterplan through to the human scale. Key to each project’s success is a strategy for uses at the ground plane, and a commitment to the design intent that ensures it is not squeezed into oblivion through value management.

On the land of the Turrbal and Jagera peoples, Brisbane’s Howard Smith Wharves, with architecture by Woods Bagot completed in 2018, is a $110-million, three-hectare development occupying a historic site beneath Story Bridge and against a cliff. With buildings covering less than 10 percent of the site, the project is an urban knuckle connecting Brisbane’s City Reach Boardwalk to the New Farm Riverwalk pedestrian bridge. This “hybrid park,” as the architects call it, is also an entertainment precinct that plays a role in vitalizing a part of the river edge that was otherwise dormant, unsafe and cut off from its context. Similarly, Fish Lane, a formerly inconsequential through-link just off Brisbane’s South Bank and arts precinct, has been transformed by Richards and Spence with RPS Group from a dark undercroft into a verdant public square, flanked by open-edged hospitality and other small-business activity.⁹

In Sydney, a number of large urban regeneration projects, including public spaces, mixed-use developments and cultural destinations, are being built along the harbour on Gadigal land. Considering how we not only physically stitch these private-to-public interfaces together, but connect them through learning about and caring for Country, is an important way to transcend their funding models. The City of Sydney has launched Yananurala (Walking on Country), a walk aided by wayfinding, installations and a digital app that connects Pirrama (Pyrmont) to Woolloomooloo. This approach to respecting and learning about Aboriginal culture, language and resilience is, according to curator Emily McDaniel, “an Acknowledgement of Country in its truest, most ancient form.”¹⁰ It reinforces a deeper understanding that public places are owned by Traditional Custodians who have and always will have a continuing connection to Country.

Also on Gadigal land, George Street Plaza – the first plaza to be built on George Street in more than 50 years – is a public space recently delivered by the private sector in conjunction with the City of Sydney, at the Circular Quay end of Sydney’s CBD. The plaza is part of Sydney Place, a commercial mixed-use precinct being developed by Lendlease.¹¹ Approximately half of this precinct will be dedicated to the public realm and, sitting above the city’s first public cycling facility, the plaza will be transferred into the ownership of the City of Sydney once completed. The project is an example of a successful collaboration between industry and local government in the delivery of public and community infrastructure. Concurrently, this model has enabled a co-design process in the form of a community building within the plaza, designed by David Adjaye of Adjaye Associates in partnership with leading Australian artist and Kudjila/Gangalu man Daniel Boyd. The way in which public experience has been prioritized in this project exemplifies the balancing of public and private within a context of high land value and recognition of significant cultural significance.

A common thread runs through the projects discussed above, from their inception: a sense of leadership and shared intent between government and private organizations to deliver a project firmly on the spectrum of “publicness” that contributes in an ongoing way to the city and its cultural identity. Design in all its forms is at the centre of this process, from policy and urban design, to funding, ownership, curation and governance models, to the design of architecture, public realm, art and programming. There is no single recipe here – only a consistent and holistic approach underpinned by responsiveness to the cultural, ecological and sociopolitical dynamics that define our cities at this time. This approach characterizes the emergent role of design today.

Source: Architecture - architectureau