Transit Oriented Development and Related Urban Design Theories: A Study of Perth’s Planning

Efforts

Student Name21541832

Final Semester Report

Supervisors: Prof. Doina Olaru and Dr. Brett Smith Management and Organisations (UWA Business School)

1

Table of Contents

0. RESEARCH QUESTION

1. INTRODUCTION

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

1. Identifying Design Theories in and around Perth

3. METHODOLOGY

1. Standards

2. Chosen Activity Centres

4. EMPIRICAL INQUIRY

1. TOD Score Breakdown

2. Contextual Comparison of Place

5. FINDINGS

1. Quantitative Analysis

2. Qualitative Analysis

6. CONCLUSION

2

Abstract

This research paper looks at the three case studies of Subiaco, Joondalup, and

Murdoch in the context of urban design and planning. Using the Transit Oriented

Development (TOD) Standard each case study was benchmarked in order to

determine its success as a TOD. These results were then compared to another

design standard--LEED Neighborhood Development of the US Green Building

Council. Both TOD and LEED Standards fit under the larger umbrella of the New

Urbanism design movement--a design movement that aims to return to a traditional

style of design and development. This traditional style focuses on designing places

on a human scale in contrast to the skyscrapers and freeways of modern design and

planning.

Visiting the case study sites and using data from NearMap provided the

information necessary in order to benchmark each suburb according to the

aforementioned standards. Within each standard, measurements such as walkability

and connectivity, among others, were handpicked because they provide the most

accurate and complete analysis of a place without using the TOD and LEED

Standards in their entirety. The resulting scores from the design standards

confirmed Subiaco as the best example of TOD with Joondalup and Murdoch

finishing second the third receptively. In addition to the quantitative data provided

though NearMap, a qualitative study was done with the help of the Australian Urban

Design Research Centre. This examined aspects of a place that scores could not

show, such as public realm elements and other conditions for good urban life. These

analytics reconfirmed Subiaco as the best example of TOD. Together, both TOD and

LEED provided accurate benchmarks of traditional development and design.

3

0. RESEARCH QUESTION

How is Perth benchmarking with respect to the metrics established by the

TOD and LEED Standards, using the TOD projects in Joondalup, Murdoch, and

Subiaco, and comparing their quality and efficiency in the area of urban design?

1. INTRODUCTION

After a period of the mid to late 1900’s where the modern suburb was fully

realized and dominated the development of cities and movement of people, cities

are once again the most desired place to live1. Many reasons have been cited for this,

one of the foremost being the commute from where one lives to where one works2.

In the late 1970’s a new movement arose entitled “New Urbanism”, one that sought

to redefine the way cities are designed, or more aptly, return to the pre-modern, or

traditional way of design3. Other design theories have arisen addressing the

problems of the modern city. Two of these other major theories include Transit

Oriented Development (what is currently implemented in Directions 2031) and

Landscape Urbanism. This report will investigate the contribution of these theories

to Directions 2031. In addition, the report will look at the relevance of Transit

Oriented Development and New Urbanism to the city in the 21st century.

The three developments that will be looked at are Joondalup, Subiaco, and

Murdoch. Each possesses distinct and differentiable qualities that will allow for

analysis that can pin point exactly what urban design characteristics are affecting

communities in a positive manner. LEED Neighborhood Development4 and Transit

Oriented Development Standards5 will be used to gain quantitative measurements

throughout the case study.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Identifying Design Theories in and around Perth

1 The Great Inversion, 20122 Congress for New Urbansim, 19933 Congress for New Urbanism, 19934 LEED 2009 for Neighborhood Development, 20095 TOD Standard, 2014

4

The different sites that will be investigated during the research process are

the activity centres of Joondalup, Subiaco, and Murdoch. While others in the

research group are working on the design of attractors and traffic flow, my own

research will focus on how design leads to places that people want to live and

interact. Joondalup, Subiaco and Murdoch each have distinct planning histories6,

which lead to great points of comparison when looking at the success of each place7.

Focusing in on characteristics of generators, research will be done looking at the

walkability of an area, along with how mixed-use it is partnered with looking at

connection of streets—all of which generally lead to a compact area8. Many of these

goals are key in both New Urbanism and Transit Oriented Development; however, it

is in the ways in which these design theories are implemented that differences

occur.

When looking at previous examples of both Transit Oriented Development

(TOD) and New Urban development, such as Central Saint Giles in London and the

New Urbanist Development of Poundbury, England they come across as strikingly

different9. A simple explanation could be, that while one site is found within a large

city and the other in the countryside. Leon Krier, known as a leader of the New

Urbanism movement, suggests that buildings no taller than four stories create a

feeling of connection to the community10. What are the merits of this and does this

truly add something that TOD does not?

Looking deeper into the principles of each design theory, TOD bases itself

around eight core features entitled: walk, cycle, connect, transit, mix, density,

compact, and shift11 while New Urbanism focuses on the very similar core features

of walkability, connectivity, mixed use, quality architecture and urban design,

traditional neighborhood structure, density, green transportation, and

sustainability12. Is TOD encompassed by the design theory that is New Urbanism? Or

6 City of Joondalup, 20147 Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority, 20118 TOD Standards, 20149 TOD Standards, 201410 Congress for New Urbanism, 199311 TOD Standards, 201412 Congress for New Urbanism, 2014

5

is it a concurrent, but similar theory? Identifying each core feature at the individual

activity centres will allow for a comprehensive look into the importance of the

respective urban design theories to a successful TOD plan. As far as Landscape

Urbanism is concerned, the UWA-based Australian Urban Design Research Centre

(AUDRC) provides specialized knowledge for addressing urban design challenges

associated with TOD. Contacts were made with Dr. Anthony-Duckworth-Smith, who

further assisted analysis regarding Landscape Urbanism.

By looking at Joondalup, Murdoch, and Subiaco, three different scenarios of

TOD planning can be studied. Focusing on the individual success of these

developments, it will be determined which aspects of each area’s urban design

contributed to the overall livability of the city, and what design aspects detracted

from the overall livability. Using knowledge from each of the three design theories

previously mentioned in context with current development, is there a way to take

the benefits of each in order to best plan the city of Perth?

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 Standards

In order to quantitatively discuss the merits of both New Urbanism and

Transit Oriented Development two scales are used. One is be the TOD Standard

scale, which evaluates a place based around the eight core features of TOD13. The

other scale used is the LEED Neighborhood Development scale, which was founded

using New Urbanism theory14. Both of these rating systems are the official systems

used by their respective design governing bodies in order to determine to what

degree a locale has adapted the set standards.

Within each section of the design standards there are subsections that

determine the overall points for the section they belonged to. For, example, the

Walk section of the TOD Standard has five subsections ranging from percentage of

streets with safe, wheelchair accessible crosswalks, to the percentage of walkway

segments that provide adequate shade (See derivation in Appendix: Table 1). The

LEED standard was similar in that it had a list of requirements that determined total

13 TOD Standard, 201414 LEED 2009 for Neighborhood Development, 2009

6

overall points. Some of the LEED walkability factors are distance of sidewalks from a

residential unit as well as frequency of functional entries to buildings15 (See

derivation in Appendix: Table 2). As a whole, the LEED Standard was more thorough

and focused more on aesthetics than the TOD scores. Through mapping technologies

such as Nearmap and visiting the three TOD designated sites, data was collected in

order to quantitatively analyze, using these standards, the three activity centres.

3.2 Chosen Activity Centres

When looking at the different TOD sites, they offer three distinct looks with

respect to their urban design. Subiaco, at initial glance, seems to be most closely

related to New Urbanism, with the furthest away being Murdoch, and Joondalup

somewhere in the middle. Subiaco has everything you could ask for when looking at

an urban design centred around TOD and New Urbanism. With narrow streets and a

centralized open space with public transit it seems to be an ideal representation of

New Urbanism. There are plenty of mixed-use buildings as well as relatively short

building heights. After using the standards and acquiring demographic data it will it

will be interesting to see the conclusions of how important these factors become in

determining each place’s overall score.

Murdoch is a very decentralized TOD, with a major highway splitting what

seemed to be a mostly residential area from an area with multiple hospitals and

business buildings. While there are buses that do run from one side to the other,

there is little option of walking from a residential to a business area (a key

component of New Urbanism). It also lacks is a centralized open space that unifies

and connects the buildings that radiate around it. Obviously, this has a lot to do with

the fact that the activity centre is built in the middle of a large freeway. What, if any,

changes can be made that are specified, or in line with the design theories

previously stated? Are these changes feasible and what would need to happen in

order for action to occur?

As a town that has elements of the both Subiaco and Murdoch, Joondalup is a

pre-planned city built around a public transportation centre that is also a shopping

mall. This serves as the entrance to the town and it’s centerpiece to an extent. Upon

15 LEED 2009 Neighborhood Development

7

leaving the shopping mall the feel of the town changes to one of a much less modern

feel and one that in many ways feels more like Subiaco. However, due to the lack of a

central open space, there was a distinct disconnection between buildings. Another

violation would be it’s low density outside of the main blocks that we were able to

walk during our visit. This is where qualitative analysis will become more important

—it will help to pin point exactly what creates a certain “feel” about a place and also

help determine what aspects are most important when creating a sustainable city

that caters to its residents.

4. EMPIRICAL ENQUIRY

4.1 TOD Score Breakdowns

Case studies are used in order to give real world examples of theory that is

under research. The three case studies of Subiaco, Joodalup, and Murdoch are the

three chosen sites being analyzed for the purpose of testing the urban theories. The

quantitative analysis of these three sites began with an adapted TOD Standard

scoring. Because the standard covered more than was deemed necessary for the

urban design research, only certain, applicable, sections of the standard were used

for the rating system. In the revised rating system, Joondalup scored a 32 (out of

53), Subiaco also scored a 32, while Murdoch scored an 1116. The numerical

breakdown of these scores can be found in Table 3 in the Appendix. The initial

reaction from these scores is to immediately discount Murdoch as a place

incorporating Transit Oriented Design. However, the question to ask is does

Murdoch succeed in what it is meant to do? As a major place of attraction

(university and hospitals), Murdoch has a much different set of goals to accomplish

than Joondalup and Subiaco. This must be taken into account when comparing it to

places like Subiaco and Joondalup.

4.2 Contextual Comparison of Place

By looking at the scores of Joondalup and Subiaco one might think they are

incredibly similar places. However, their histories could almost be no further apart.

Joondalup is a recently planned and developed northern suburb urban centre that

16 TOD Standard, 2014

8

was completed in the 1990’s17, while Subiaco is a historic neighborhood within

Perth that, for at least the next few years, hosts one of the largest attractions in the

Perth area, the West Coast Eagles and Fremantle Dockers (Australian Football

teams) home pitch. This situation is changing soon as a new stadium is currently

being constructed in Burswood, near the Perth CBD18. So how do these places have

identical TOD Standard scores? Subiaco, being designed and planned before current

modern planning techniques, was built in a more traditional neighborhood style19;

however, even many of its newer aspects, such as the apartments east of the station,

are built in a way that conforms to the TOD Standard and many practices of New

Urbanism. Its organic growth and history have lead to Subiaco having many design

advantages that Joondalup does not possess.

Design advantages in this case are public realm elements, such as a square,

plaza, or an identifiable landmark that gives a sense of importance to a place.

Although on the decline, the Subiaco Market, Patersons Stadium, and even places

such as the Subiaco Hotel are considered places that give Subiaco public realm

elements. This is starkly different in a place such as Joondalup, which, due to its

inorganic nature of development, lacks a lot of the character that a place like

Subiaco possesses. Not only are built environment landmarks of a place important,

but also those landmarks that are natural--a point of interest for a place like

Joondalup could have been Lake Joondalup. This is an example of lack of foresight

on the part of the planners of Joondalup, which led to the loss of a public realm

element that could have enhanced the built environment. Just 400 metres east of the

Joondalup station, Lake Joondalup would have been a major attractor and public

realm element had the planning of the project been lead through design related

planning.

However, despite all of these differences, Joondalup and Subiaco scored the

same TOD Standard scores. Balancing out their Connect and Compact features, many

of the physical qualities of the two places are very similar--good, walkable streets,

17 City of Joondalup, 201418 New Perth Stadium, 201419 Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND), 2014

9

with compact areas containing mixed-use buildings. All of these features are present

in places that are designed under TOD and New Urban standards. However, when

visiting a place such as Subiaco, the place feels so much more alive walking around

the streets, than does Joondalup. This could be due to the fact that the main

attractor of Joondalup was the mall connected to the transit, which happened to be

inside and partially underground. This is in contrast to Subiaco, where exiting the

train station leads to the main attraction—the train station is not the attraction

itself. It is logical to think with the same TOD scores that these two places would

have a very similar feel. Were the sets of scores take from the TOD standards not

correct? Or did the TOD not give a comprehensive account of what a place is? This is

why many different forms of qualitative analysis must be accomplished in order to

fully attain a full understanding of a designated area.

5. FINDINGS

5.1 Quantitative Analysis

In calculating the LEED Standard scores (derived from New Urban

principles) for each of the individual case studies it was discovered that Subiaco had

a score of 14 (out of 24), Joodalup had a score of 7, and Murdoch had a score of 3.

This data more aligns with the qualitative data that was taken when visiting the

sites themselves. Some of the measures in the LEED Standard had to be discounted

because of a lack of knowledge regarding the subject. For example, the type of

façade present in the buildings was a category; however, due to time constraints this

was unable to be recorded, meaning it was left out of the standard as a whole. The

LEED standards that are used to compare to the TOD standards are Compact

Development, Mixed-Use Neighborhood Centres, Reduced Parking Footprint, Street

Network, and, additionally a percentage of overweight or obese adults with type 2

diabetes (See Appendix Tables 4 and 5). No, the latter is not a measure within the

LEED manual; however, among the claims of new Urbanism is that spaces conducive

to increased walkability lead to healthier lives, which naturally would lead to a

decrease in obesity.

In the category of Compact Development, which looked at the amount of

household dwelling per unit area, Subiaco recorded the highest amount of houses

10

per unit are with 1934 homes/km^2, while Joondalup and Murdoch came in second

and third respectively, with densities of 750 houses/km^2 and 95 homes/hm^2.

One aspect that I see lacking, or might have missed, is a score for people per unit

area (density), combined with other factors to determine a sort of carrying capacity

for an area. If the area is overstressed as a place then that must impact its

qualifications for urban design.

This was investigated using the Bertolini Node-Place Model20, which is a

model that was developed in the late 1990’s which helps describe a place in terms of

node-value, place-value, pressure, and dependence. A node-value describes how

connected the place is to other points of interest whereas the place-value describes

the quantity and diversity of activities of the place itself. Pressure means that a place

is at its full development capacity, with little opportunity to expand, while

dependent status indicates that a place has room to develop. Using this model,

Murdoch was seen as highly nodal and dependent, Joondalup scored a good balance

between node and place as well as having more pressure that Murdoch, and Subiaco

scored a high place-value and slightly more pressured than Joondalup. This Bertolini

model aligned with the data the other standards provided, and reaffirmed the

validity of the previous data.

When looking at the availability of mixed-use centres in each of the three

case studies, Subiaco comes out on top as far as people living close to places of

gathering--where people would congregate for town activities. The scores tier as

many of the scales before have with Joondalup coming in second and Murdoch again

coming in third. In fear of monotony, the other measures of Reduced Parking

Footprint along with Street Networks favor once again Subiaco, Joondalup, and then

Murdoch (See Appendix: Table 4). The additional measurement that was taken--

percentage of overweight or obese adults with type 2 diabetes; however, returned

results that were not compliant with the goals of New Urbanism. There was no

noticeable difference in the percentages of overweight or obese adults with type 2

diabetes. This result was unexpected based on the earlier results and assumptions.

5.2 Qualitative Analysis

20 Nodes and Places: Complexities of Railway Station Development

11

Other factors that are hard to quantify with numbers are those that are

related to the quality of life offered by a place. After talking to Anthony-Duckworth

Smith of the Australian Urban Design Research Centre, a few of the measurements

that were conceived were the pollution of a region (regarding noise as well as

waste), crime rates as well as overall safety of the region, what type of

recreational/open space is available for the residents, and other factors such as the

landmarks that were mentioned earlier. Although many of these factors are not as

quantifiable, they have an equally important part in determining the quality of the

place in discussion. Many of the factors must be determined using design techniques

in lieu of rigid planning scores. However, many measurements can still be taken—

for example, noise level is a part of the Nearmap statistics; however, unfortunately,

there is not data for the case study regions that are under research. Many of the

major components of the design theories of New Urbanism and TOD accompany

aspects affecting quality of life--such as central communal districts for town events,

an ability to build stronger community through neighborhood design, and planning

on a human scale. In other words, planning developments around people, and not

cars is the requirement for highly livable places. Designing communities using these

standards creates the premise for increased quality of life of the residents.

One of the shortcomings of this research was an inability to incorporate

Landscape Urbanism, one of the newer, leading design theories, into the research

metrics. Landscape Urbanism involves a layered approach, which takes into account

the accompaniment of environmental systems of a place and how those systems

relate to the built environment above. In a way, it determines where and where not

to build according to the natural environment. This is an ambitious and admirable

design strategy, as it is more important now than ever before to take into account

how we are impacting the planet with our built environment; however, the limited

time and knowledge regarding environmental systems prevented its inclusion in

this report.

6. CONCLUSION

12

The findings from the case study analysis indicate with confidence that

Subiaco is the best representation of New Urban and Transit Oriented Design

planning. In Perth, WA the standards given by TOD and New Urban theory gave a

great insight into ways in which developments are planned and designed. However,

in some cases the standards failed to give an accurate or complete representation of

the place. An example of this failure is in the Connect section of the TOD Standard,

where one long block discount dozens of other well laid-out streets. However, for

the majority of cases, the standards lead to a very accurate representation of the

case studies that align with the notes taken from visiting each place.

A key factor that differentiated one case study from another in terms of

design and liveliness was public realm elements. While Joondalup scored similarly

in terms of the TOD Standard, it lacked a central location that community members

could congregate for everyday activity. Although a modern mall is already in place,

maybe a thought would be given to designing an open-air market or something

similar for the city to have a place of gathering downtown and near (but not a part

of) the train station. The mall creates a disconnect between the station and the rest

of the city—compared to Subiaco where the station flows well into the open, relaxed

space that is the town square. One quick glace at Murdoch shows that there are no

public realm elements near the train station at present moment.

Use of urban design and planning have the ability to both create (and

destroy) a sense of feel in a place. Standards such those of Transit Oriented

Development and New Urbanism hope to create places that are not only easy to

access, but when accessed are delightful to stay and experience. By benchmarking

three distinct case studies within the Perth metroplex, many already known factors

(that lead to the design of great places) were solidified as well as others uncovered.

Many factors such as walkability, mixed-use areas, as well as use of open plazas and

places for gathering all lead to cities and places that are designed on a human scale.

While Joondalup does lack some public realm features (considered an essential

ingredient of a desirable place) that are present in Subiaco, both Subiaco and

Joondalup are great examples of thoughtful design. Murdoch is stuck in a rough spot

as its main access point is above a large freeway--this does not allow for any type of

13

connection between a person and place. While it does serve as an access point for a

university as well as the hospitals, it does not posses features that create great

community. One aspect that would be a worthwhile addition to the benchmarking of

cities is how places that are planned all at once compare to those older cities that

have a more organic growth. Ultimately, the standards set by Transit Oriented

Development and New Urbanism proved, together, to be useful benchmarks for

creating places that is truly worth caring about.

14

Bibliography

Alan Ehrenhalt, “The Great Inversion”, 2012.

Bertolini, Luca. "Nodes and Places: Complexities of Railway Station Development." European Planning Studies 4.3 (1996): 331-45.

“City of Joondalup”, Government of Western Australia. 2014. Web. http://www.joondalup.wa.gov.au/Welcome/History.aspx

“Congress for New Urbanism”, Charter for the New Urbanism. Chicago, United States, 1993. Web. http://www.cnu.org

Institute for Transportation and Development Policy. TOD Standard v2.1. New York: Despacio, 2014

“LEED 2009 For Neighborhood Development”, Congress for New Urbanism, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the U.S. Green Building Council. 2009.

“Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority” Government of Western Australia. 2001. Web. http://www.mra.wa.gov.au

“New Perth Stadium”, Government of Western Australia. 2014. Web. http://www.perthstadium.com.au

“New Urbanism: Creating Livable Sustainable Communities”, Alexandria, Virginia. www.newurbanism.org

“Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND)” Sustainable Cities Institute. 2014. Web. http://www.sustainablecitiesinstitute.org/topics/land-use-and-planning/traditional-neighborhood-development-(tnd)

15

Appendix

Table 1: TOD Walk Score Derivation

Walk Score Subsection Definitions Criteria Subiaco1.1 Walkways: 100% of walk-ways are complete 100% = 3

<100% = 03/3

1.2 Intersections: Every street has a pedestrian crossing

100% = 3<100% = 0

3/3

1.4: Physically Permeable Frontage: Average number of shop and building entrances per 100

metres

>= 5 = 2>= 3 = 1<3 = 0

1/2

1.5: Percentage of walkways incorporating adequate shade

>75 % = 1<75% = 0 pts

1/1

Total N/A 8/9

Table 2: LEED Walkability Score Derivation

Walk Score Subsection Definitions

Criteria Subiaco

Buildings less than 25 ft. from street

<= 25 ft = 1> 25 ft. = 0

1

Buildings less than 25 ft. from street

<= 18 ft. = 1> 25 ft. = 0

1

Mixed-Use buildings within 1 ft. of sidewalk

<= 1 ft. = 1> 1 ft. = 0

1

70% on-street parking provided

< 70% = 0>= 70% = 1

1

Continuous sidewalks Continuous = 1Separate = 0

1

Elevated finished floor >= 24 in. = 1< 24 in. = 0

0

Functional building entrance every 75 ft.

<= 75 ft. = 1> 75 ft. = 0

1

50 % of office buildings include ground floor retail

< 50% = 0>= 50% = 1

0

40% of buildings have height-street ratios of 3:1

< 40% = 0>= 40% = 1

1

75% of residential streets are <25 mph

<= 25 mph = 1> 25 mph = 0

1

75% of non-residential streets are <25 mph

<= 25mph = 1> 25 mph = 0

0

Driveways are < than 10% the length of sidewalks

<= 10 % = 1> 10 % = 0

1

Total N/A 9/12

16

Table 3: TOD Score Breakdown using Nearmap

Subiaco Joondalup MurdochWalk 8/9 7/9 6/9Cycle 0/3 1/3 1/3

Connect 5/15 9/15 1/15Mix 5/11 6/11 0/11

Compact 13/15 9/15 3/15Total 32/53 32/53 11/53

Table 4: LEED Standard Scores with Nearmap and POI Spreadsheet

Subiaco Joondalup MurdochWalk 9/12 6/12 3/12

Compact 2/6 0/6 0/6Mixed-Use 2/4 1/4 0/4

Parking Footprint 0/1 0/1 0/1Street Network 1/2 0/2 0/2

Total 14/24 7/24 3/24

Table 5: Diabetes due to Obesity

Subiaco (%)

Joondalup (%)

Murdoch (%)

Perth Metropolitan Region (%)

Percentage of overweight or obese

adults with type 2 diabetes

2.9 2.7 2.8 3.0

17