Monday, 19 December 2016

SUBMISSION TO LAUNCESTON CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING AUTHORITIES – DA0590/2016

SUBJECT: Development Application DA0590/2016 


APPLICATION DESCRIPTION 

"Business and Professional Services - offices; Vehicle Parking - car park; Food Services - café; Hotel Industry - bar; alterations to existing heritage-listed buildings to accommodate offices; café/bar and coffee shop; construction of a building extension to accommodate offices; construction of a single and multi-storey car park; subdivision (consolidation of lots); associated works involving the provision of site vehicular access, pedestrian access and landscaping in Charles Street, Canal Street, Cimitiere Street and Wellington Street "


Given the context within which this proposal exists there are a number of considerations that need further considerations to be taken into account in order that the development is a truly welcomed development within the cultural landscape of the City of Launceston.

HERITAGE VALUES 


As a ‘mercantile site’ a large component of the city’s colonial histories are embedded within it – and is variously intrinsically attached to it. The CH Smith ‘enterprise’ on this site was an integral component of Launceston’s and indeed the Tamar region’s primary production export industries. 

Interestingly it is a site where there were significant commercial interactions, and commercial exchanges, with Tasmania’s Aboriginal community. It was with that part of that community involved in fishing and mutton bird harvesting living in the Furneaux Islands. This remains an important component of that community’s ‘cultural memory’. .

Given that the planning scheme seeks to ensure that opportunities are provided within the Launceston urban area to provide for the higher order facilities required by the population of Northern Tasmania, going forward the city’s ‘heritage values’ will be pivotal to the success of the city’s interfacing enterprises. 

Specifically, ‘cultural tourism’ can be expected to be a key component and driver of the city’s and region’s economy looking ahead. Moreover, the provision for efficient and accessible movement of people is a key component to be considered in development proposals. 

WHAT IS CULTURAL TOURISM? 

Cultural tourism needs to be understood as a subset of tourism and one primarily concerned with ‘placedness’ a place’s cultural manifestations and its sense of place

Specifically cultural tourism is concerned with: 
  • The lifestyle of the people in those geographical areas; 
  • The histories of those people; 
  • Their art and cultural production; 
  • Architecture in its cultural context; 
  • Religion(s); and other elements such as economic profile that come together and contribute to the shaping a community’s way of life and the ‘cultural landscape’ in which it exists. 
Cultural tourism includes tourism in urban areas and in rural areas alike. It may focus upon showcasing the traditions of the region (i.e. festivals, rituals), and their values and lifestyle. 

It is generally agreed that cultural tourists spend substantially more than standard tourists and therefore the built fabric of a cultural landscape is a prime consideration. 

DEFINING CULTURAL TOURISM 

Cultural tourism has been defined as "the movement of persons to cultural attractions away from their normal place of residence, with the intention to gather new information, and new experiences, to satisfy their various aspirations – cultural, social, educational etc." 

Here, on this site in Launceston, there is clear need to plan to satisfy these aspirations in a measured way, and in a 21st C context, if the city's ‘strategic positioning’ is genuinely serious about cultural tourism. .

Recently, specialists who look at the marketing of cultural tourism, suggest that the concept of cultural tourism should be more closely scrutinised than has been the case in the past for two reasons. 
  • First and foremost, and generally, ‘culture’ all too often seems to be a concept that’s applied only to Indigenous communities as representative stereotypes. 
  • Likewise, cultural tourism can all too often be characterised as a new way of continuing the colonisation between ‘the centres of power’ and their peripheries. 
In this latter case, and in its very worst manifestations, cultural tourism tends to lead to a narrow ethnocentric construction of ‘exotic otherness’. This must be avoided! 

Moreover, in Launceston there needs to be an effort made to ensure that the city is an exemplar of an alternative to the 'exotic otherness syndrome'

Clearly cultural tourism has its ugly aspects. However, it need not and communities with: 
•  A well developed sense of place;
•   A connection to place; and 
•  Deep understandings of ‘their place’
have much to offer not only their visitors but also to the wellbeing of the host community. 

Tourism destinations are built upon the things that give a place, a city, a landscape, its own distinctive character and in ways that separate it out from other destinations. These factors are: 
•   The lifestyle experiences the residents and visitor can enjoy together; 
•   The communities that can openly share their history and heritage; 
•   The manner in which the place’s distinct cultural realities are expressed and shared; and 
•  The place’s geography – its natural and cultural landscape, its built environment, flora, fauna etc. 
These things are the utmost basic foundation upon which tourism offerings in any destination has to offer. 

Importantly, cultural tourism gives visitors the opportunity to understand and appreciate the essential character of a place and its culture as a whole, including all of the above. 

At its best, cultural tourism gives ‘the visitor’ access to information, experience and activities that can help them feel engaged with a place, its people, their heritage and their histories. In essence ‘the tourist’ seeks to feel ‘at home’ albeit elsewhere and 'away from home’. Likewise, cultural tourists typically seek opportunities to compare and contrast home with elsewhere. 

Creating positive relationships of various kinds between the visitor and the host communities is an important feature of cultural tourism – and especially so in a marketing context. Likewise, tourism infrastructure needs to be directed towards visitors feeling ‘at home’ regardless of where they come from. 

Moreover, concepts of 'sustainability, authenticity, integrity and education' are as central to cultural tourism as they are to ecotourism. This dimension of cultural tourism is also becoming more popular internationally, and a recent OECD report has highlighted the role that cultural tourism can play in regional development in different world regions such as in cities like Launceston is both important and undervalued. CLICK HERE TO SEE DISCUSSION PAPER – Cultural Tourism In The Tamar Region April 2012

TOURISM INFRASTRUCTURE RELATIVE TO THIS SITE

From the information available in the plans presented it is clear that the development proposal is primarily focused upon providing utilitarian private office space with ancillary parking facilities. From the available information it is apparent that despite the parking facility being ‘publicly owned’council owned and ratepayer funded ultimately – the lion’s share of this parking is destined for ‘non-public dedicated usage’ and seemingly non income generative. .

The emphasis apparent here in the current proposal is site specific and almost totally utilitarian. Indeed, in the case of the parking facility, much of its function is to isolate it from the community and by default insulate it from community engagement as well. However, its utility will apparently be business hours only. 

Nonetheless, in respect to the parking facility there are alternative ways to imagine it and strategically afford it a role(s) in the promotion and facilitation of tourism – cultural tourism in particular. Currently the proposal sends the ‘visual message’ that it is a ‘business hours facility’ and one that carries a subliminal set of preconditions for engagement with it – that its only or the car parking facility

The visual and subliminal messages here is that this space/place ‘without cars’ is a ‘dead space’. Moreover, if one were to enter it there is every possibility that you would be doing so as a ‘trespasser cum transgressor’. 

Alternatively, this space/place might well be imagined as an ‘accessible public place’when without parked cars – it has the potential to be imagined and promoted as being:

•  A place of public assembly; 
•  A festival site cum cultural activities place; 
A market place for weekend and night markets; 
A venue for POPup cafés, restaurants, food stalls etc.; 
•  A miscellaneous activities space; and 
possibly more still given its geography, heritage and location relative to the city’s CBD. 

If such a potential were to be realised (realisable?!) sometime in the future, and in a 21st C context, strategically, there would need to be: 
•  Public toilet facilities – and looking towards a more sustainable future, waterless facilities
•  Serviced by strategically placed power outlets; 
Serviced by strategically placed lighting – ideally powered via solar energy looking towards a more sustainable future; and · 
•  Serviced by strategically placed water outlets for site cleansing, drinking fountains, etc. 

MAKING PUBLIC SPACES CULTURAL PLACES 

SCAPE, John Vella and Stephen Hurrell, 2008. 
In 1979, the Tasmanian Government approved the creation of the Art for Public Buildings Scheme (APBS LINK), now known as The Tasmanian Government Art Site Scheme. It was the first scheme of its kind to be established in Australia, and continues to operate today by Arts Tasmania. 

The 'CH Smith Building Project' rates as the kind of building deserving of including cultural installations in its planning and implementation – artworks, integrated cultural elements, etc. Its potential as being a significant contributor to the city’s ‘cultural landscape’ is almost without challenge. Additionally, this site/place is strategically placed enabling it to be an important contributor to the ‘placemaking cum placemarking’ that would have ‘cultural utility’ in regard to the celebration of the city’s cultural heritage and consequently enhancing cultural tourism’s prospects. 

It is interesting to note that the first completed commission under Tasmania’s Art for Public Building Scheme was in 1980. It consisted of furniture for St Paul’s Chapel at Launceston General Hospital. It was a ‘collection of paintings, chapel furnishings in Huon Pine and an outdoor crucifix produced a group of Tasmanian artists – Kevin Perkins, Peter Taylor and Merv Gray.’ 

This was followed, in 1981, by a further three commissions at Hobart Technical College, Launceston College of TAFE and the Lands Department Hobart, with works being commissioned by Garry Greenwood, Chris Beecroft, Oliffe Richmond, Anton Holzner and Peter Taylor respectively. 

At the time, 30 plus years ago now, the imperative was not only to enhance public buildings' amenity but also to provide income opportunities for Tasmania artists, designer-makers and cultural producers. Consequently, these initial ‘installations’ were add-ons, and quite often what has come to be known, and somewhat unfavourably, as PLONKart, a kind of after thought – a bow-on-the-box ... surplus to requirement

Time has moved on and the current wisdom suggests that there are better ways to achieve the outcomes aimed for when the Art for Public Building Scheme was implemented. Currently, there are increasing efforts to integrate and amalgamate the ‘cultural installations’ into the built fabric. 

Given that this site is a ‘heritage site’, and that it incorporates a ’collage of building facades’ that reflect and project Launceston’s histories and heritage, there are multiple opportunities to affordably integrate ‘cultural installations’ into the built fabric and its environs – internal and external.  Likewise, the site's landscaping, within the project budget, needs to be considered in this context.

POTENTIAL FOR THE REFINEMENT OF THE PROPOSAL TO ENABLE THE INTEGRATION OF THE CELEBRATION OF HERITAGE VALUES

Click on image to enlarge
The Charles Street facade of the site is currently a ‘history collage’ given that it architecturally collages the evolution of the site’s ‘mercantile histories’. Given this, there are multiple opportunities to reinforce this ‘collaging’ and by doing so celebrate the integrity of site’s architectural expressions of the site’s histories. 

The most noticeable aspect of the current proposal is that many of the ‘ingress cum egress point’s’ have been blended into the façade given some assumption of ‘redundancy(?)’arguably blanding and devaluing them formally and symbolically in a heritage context by doing so. 

Click on image to enlarge
Rather than infill entry and exit points and thus creating barriers to ‘the worlds within and without’ there are opportunities to creatively employ the design dynamics at work when encountering the building as a component of the cultural landscape. By way of example, a redundant ‘shop window space’ might well be utilised as opportunities for ‘cultural installations’. Such ‘installations’ might be either ephemeral(changing?) in the way they once were, transient or even enduring dependent upon perceived needs plus marketing and build management strategies. 

Likewise, the south facing wall on the colonial building – 26 Charles Street – carries vestiges of heritage signage that might be retained rather than obliterated. There are inhibiting factors that might well work against such a strategy. Nonetheless, given that this space, and over time, has proven itself to be prime space for advertising signage it might well be employed as a site for a ‘cultural installation’ephemeral, transient graphics, projections, etc. 

Such strategies as these would go a long way towards celebrating the building’s, indeed the site’s, heritage values. At the same time it would enable the site to become an integral part of the city’s cultural tourism infrastructure. 

ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL 

Increasingly in large cities elsewhere development proposals such as this one have planning provisions inhibiting the development from imposing heavily upon civic infrastructure. There are reports of developments being approved contingent upon: 
 The building managing all its water ‘on site’; and 
•   It generating a prescribed amount of its own energy needs ‘on site’ .

While none of this is currently a part of the planning provisions in Tasmania there is a case to be put that: 
  1.  Given the number of people intended to be accommodated on this site, and their intended activities, there is a need to consider the developments imposition upon civic infrastructure – water management in particular
  2.  Given the building’s orientation, and the space afforded via the top deck of the car parking facility, there is a need to consider the opportunities to provide for solar energy collection – either at the time of building or at some future date
In regard to stormwater management across Australia it is being recognised that this water needs to be restricted in its movement across urban landscapes and where possible allowed to ‘filter’ into landscapes as gently as possible rather than exit them as quickly as possible. Given the size of this development, and the projected area of impervious surfaces, stormwater run-off is an environmental management issue that needs to be managed in more sophisticated ways than up to now. 

Given this there will be opportunities not yet identified to ensure that stormwater is managed in accord with what is currently understood as best practice via such devices as, retention basins soakage rills, ‘rain gardens’, etc. 

Moreover, given the state of pollution in the Tamar Estuary opportunities need to be investigated, and taken up, with an eye to mitigating any contribution this site may have in regard to this development’s outcomes. 

There are strategies being developed to manage sewerage and organic waste onsite, one being to reimagine it as a ‘resource’. Once such a paradigm shift is embraced it appears than rather than imposing a cost there is the potential for multiple dividends – fiscal, environmental, social and cultural.

ANCILLIARY IMAGES






No comments:

Post a Comment