51茶馆

August 11, 2022

‘Let it rip’: Barangaroo, a masterclass in planning as deal-making

The battle lines have been drawn over the fateful final piece of Barangaroo.

The redevelopment of the 22-hectare Barangaroo precinct on Sydney Harbour has long been a masterclass in poor urban development governance and lack of due process. It was meant to transform the former docklands into a world-class example of architectural and public space design. Instead, Sydney got a world-leading example of , and .

Unsolicited urbanism is a project of city-shaping initiated by developers, not government. It clearly favours powerful development and financial players. Instead of being subject to proper public planning processes, outcomes are often predetermined.

In the case of Barangaroo, over the site have been legitimated. A culture of has been normalised.

of key state government figures and the real estate and development lobbies have targeted not just this prime harbour-side site for development, but the .

The over the site involves a for Central Barangaroo. The changes would greatly increase floorspace, including a new 20-storey tower above a metro train station, and shrink a public park. It鈥檚 the last tranche of buildings that will sit between the highly developed southern end and at the northern end.

It鈥檚 another example of how planning here operates. The planning minister and not the Independent Planning Commission will make the decision.

The latest chapter in a decade-long saga

The story begins with the Hill Thalis-led masterplan. It was effectively discarded in 2009-2010 鈥� revised out of existence.

Since then the public justification for the project has relied on two main arguments:

1. it should restore the harbour headland at the northern end of the site to something like its original form and character

2. its southern portion should be home to .

The second argument was standard guff reliant on 鈥溾�� and the rhetoric of global landmarks.

The first was more compelling. Often rehearsed in public by former prime minister Paul Keating, the argument was that the headland was a vital aspect of the city鈥檚 . Reconstructing it was much more important, Keating suggested, than protecting the form and some of the residual industrial heritage of the container port.

Setting aside Philip Thalis鈥� judgment that it is a , where does this leave the current proposal (modification 9) for Central Barangaroo?

It involves notable development impact on the harbour landscape as seen from the harbour itself and from one of Sydney鈥檚 most significant public open spaces, Observatory Hill.

The expanded development and new tower would be in an area always envisaged as low-rise. The reason was to protect views and the historic landscape.

Part of a wider story of failure

This latest Barangaroo chapter is part of a of urban governance failure.

Under the NSW Liberal government of the past decade, a raft of 鈥渞eforms鈥� have chipped away at the integrity and credibility of the planning system. Our research has tracked the of how these changes have underwritten unsolicited urbanism, as shown below.

We have seen small development loopholes open up over , and the much more significant rise of the at Barangaroo.

NSW is not alone here. In Victoria, the in Melbourne is another controversial case of unsolicited urbanism.

The rise of planning-as-deal-making involves a geographical sleight of hand. Rather than work to a broad strategic plan for a city or a whole precinct, it reduces public debate to a discrete discussion about a specific planning or development process, or a new section of the site.

The objective of this incremental approach is twofold:

1. to gain access to government land

2. to undermine the planning process that guides how this land should be used for maximum public benefit.

What is lost is accountability for how a project fulfils the broader goals of strategic city planning. A 鈥渓et it rip鈥� mentality pervades the development sector and sections of the government too.

Any long-term plan, land parcel, public infrastructure or zoning process is seemingly up for grabs, liable to be sold off, changed or up-scaled. The planning system is increasingly . have made way for developer business cases.

Anyone standing in the way of development approval is charged with , no matter how valid their concerns.

Will the government heed Sydneysiders鈥� concerns?

Sydney CBD have flatlined. The is advocating reinvigoration based on diversity and inclusivity. The latest Barangaroo plans won鈥檛 deliver this.

Instead, real estate interests want more exclusive and higher-density residential high-rise development on land that could be used differently, were social, cultural and environmental considerations given priority.

In 2016 the NSW greater transparency and public reporting of unsolicited proposals. It warned these 鈥減ose a greater risk to value for money than procurements done through open, competitive and transparent processes鈥�.

The latest controversy comes amid scandals engulfing the state government, following a federal election won and lost on issues of public integrity and evidence-based policy-making, from climate to pandemic management.

The public have lost trust in politicians to represent citizens鈥� best interests. They are suspicious of corruption, and detest 鈥渄eals for mates鈥�. While people may not understand the technicalities of planning proposals, amendments and 鈥渟tate significant鈥� developments, they do sense the cards are stacked against the public interest.

The have been drawn over this fateful of Barangaroo. The government鈥檚 decision will reveal where its loyalties lie, and whether any integrity in planning can be salvaged before voters pass judgment in the 2023 state election.

, Head of Urbanism and Associate Professor of Urban Studies, School of Architecture, Design and Planning, ; , Associate Professor, School of Architecture, Design and Planning, ; , Professor of Geography, , and , Associate Professor of Urban Planning,

This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .

---

UOW academics exercise academic freedom by providing expert commentary, opinion and analysis on a range of ongoing social issues and current affairs. This expert commentary reflects the views of those individual academics and does not necessarily reflect the views or policy positions of the 51茶馆.