Campus Planning Review 2010 Background Information Prepared for the Campus Planning Review

Campus Planning Review 2010

Background information prepared for the Campus Planning Review 2010 Steering Committee by Malcolm Mackay, Chappell Lambert Everett, Consultant Planners, Frank Roberts and Warwick Carter, UWA Facilities Management

27 October 2009

of 13 INTRODUCTION

Although located on a small campus in comparison with other Perth based universities, the University of Western Australia has considerable cultural, heritage and landscape values that make it a major State and regional asset. The University is renowned for its academic (teaching and research) achievements, as well as its contribution to the community and economy. With an expanding student population, increasing focus on research and innovation and greater emphasis on partnerships with Government, industry and others, the University is entering into a watershed period where physical growth may be hindered by land availability and planning constraints.

Following on from the “UniverCity” strategic asset planning review and State Government’s ‘Directions 2031’ planning document, Campus Plan 2010 will set out how the Crawley campus and immediate area can be developed over the next 50 years to enhance the University’s role as a world leader in higher education and research while protecting and enhancing the recognised physical values of the campus.

The University aspires to being in the top 50 universities in the world within 50 years. To achieve this vision, a number of objectives, goals and priorities have been set. Campus Plan 2010 will be the document that establishes how this vision can be interpreted in the context of physical planning.

OVERVIEW

Crawley campus is one of the most attractive university locations in Australia; a heritage of fine buildings in well-landscaped grounds, alongside the beautiful settings of Matilda Bay and Kings Park. But why is it so attractive? Well, the simplest answer is that it was planned to be so and the original plan has been respected, by and large, over the University’s 100-year history.

Every 10 years we undertake a campus planning review, and the current 2010 Crawley Planning Review will update the previous 2000 Campus Planning Review, taking into account changes both within and outside the University.

The two major objectives of the Plan are to ensure there is sufficient land and buildings to accommodate teaching, research and other needs over the next 10 years, and to place the University to the best advantage to meet external, often unforeseeable situations, over the next 50 years. The 2010 plan seeks to provide continuity of the planning ethos that has evolved over the life of the University but to address changed circumstances. In some cases, the 2010 plan seeks to reintroduce, or reinforce, desirable planning concepts that formed part of the campus planning approach many years ago but became diluted over successive changes to the campus plan, e.g. engagement of the campus to the river. As such, the plan recognises that there are lessons to be learnt from studying and evaluating past patterns of development. But the 2010 plan is not about looking backwards to recreate the past but is firmly focused on the future, and the need to create a flexible plan to meet unknown needs and opportunities.

The last few years have seen considerable changes within and outside the University - Future Framework and the new course structure, increased research focus, greater awareness of sustainability issues including rising energy costs, student expansion running at 4%+ at a time of decreased Government funding, the global financial crisis and reduced returns from University investments. No matter what changes there are in Government policies towards universities, how student numbers expand, what financial and other crises may occur, the continuity of campus planning, and planning and design principles, remains important.

The Steering Committee has been set up, with roles and membership listed below, to guide the Plan over the next year. Papers and other information will be prepared for each discussion topic with other background information. FM staff responsible for the planning of these disciplines will be attending relevant meetings. We will look at what has happened in the last 10 years, both on campus and the outside world, current issues and outside trends will be examined, planning and design principles will be re-evaluated, and short and longer term options will be considered. Discussion on each discipline following this format will be recorded on what we term a layer, and the final Campus Plan will comprise this series of layered concepts.

of 13 The completed Campus Plan 2010 will form part of the Activity Centre Plan being prepared for the UWA/QEII and surrounding landholdings, nominated as a Strategic Specialised Centre under ‘Directions 2031’.

The Campus Planning Review 2010 Steering Committee is a Vice-Chancellors Advisory Committee.

ROLE OF THE COMMITTEE

To prepare a planning document for adoption by Senate and endorsement by the Western Australian Planning Commission as the planning guide for the University over the next decade and beyond. This will include consideration of:

a) A review of the development on the Crawley campus and adjoining landholdings over the last decade, and to analyse physical development since Campus Planning Review 2000; b) A review of the planning and design principles, the cultural, architectural, heritage and landscape values, that have underpinned the quality of the Crawley campus since inception; c) Physical planning outcomes needed to meet the University’s vision, strategic plan and operational priorities; d) Government and other external policies and strategies impacting on the University; e) The requirement to ensure there are sufficient land and buildings to accommodate teaching, research and related needs over the next decade; f) The objective of placing the University in best physical planning advantage to meet external, often unforeseeable situations over the next 50 years.

MEMBERSHIP

The committee comprises:

(a) Members

Vice-Chancellor (Chair); Professor Alan Robson

Executive Director, Finance and Resources (Deputy Chair); Ms. Gaye McMath

Senate member and Strategic Resources Committee Chair; Mr. John Langoulant

Strategic Resources Committee; Mr. Warwick Hemsley

President & President-Elect Student Guild; Mr. Dominic Rose/Ms. Emma Greeney

Chair Academic Board; Winthrop Professor Karen Simmer

Dean of the Faculty of Business; Winthrop Professor Tracey Horton

WA Government Architect; Mr. Steve Woodland

Director Facilities Management (FM); Mr. Bruce Thompson

(b) Invitees to some or all meetings

WA Department of Planning representative; Mr. Charles Johnson

Urban Designer and consultant to UWA, Mr. Malcolm Mackay

Traffic Planner and Consultant to UWA, Mr. Emmerson Richardson

of 13 University Architect/Planner; Mr. Frank Roberts

Urban Planner FM; Mr. Warwick Carter

Director UWA Sports Park and Associate Director FM Client Services;

Ms. Rowan Maclean

Associate Director, FM Sustainable Development; Ms. Helen Whitbread

Others invitees as required

(c) Executive Officer:

Ms. Lyn Peacock

PROJECT TIMETABLE AND DISCUSSION TOPICS

STEERING COMMITTEE MEETINGS dates & venues listed on separate document

Date Topics Includes

1 November 2009 Introduction

Landscape Hard & soft landscaping, signage, wayfinding,

2 December 2009 Architecture Aesthetics, built form, building heights, massing (density)

Heritage Conservation of buildings & landscape

3 February 2010 Access Access, parking, public transport, cycling, pedestrian

4 March 2010 Land Uses Faculty distribution, Future Framework, learning environments, accommodation (research, teaching, administration, community etc.) & University growth

5 April 2010 Sustainable Environmental sustainability, services infrastructure Development

Land Land form & topography Characteristics

6 May 2010 Student Life Student residential, student engagement

Community Community & Cultural, Arts

Sports Sports & Recreation

7 June 2010 Summary Campus Plan 2010 draft, next steps

of 13 UNIVERSITY INTERNAL MEETINGS

Mtg Topic & date Includes

A January 2010 Acquisitions, Procurement

Governance External & Internal Approvals, Single Authority (Town Planning) issues

Security Building & Campus safety & security, emergency planning

SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS

Date Forum Purpose

TBC 2010 Vice Chancellor’s Advisory Group Presentation and feedback

TBC 2010 University Managers Group Presentation and feedback

TBC 2010 Strategic Resources Committee Endorsement

TBC 2010 Senate Endorsement

TBC 2010 CP2010 Steering Committee Review after Senate endorsement

TBC 2010 WA Planning Commission Presentation and feedback

TBC 2010 City of Nedlands Presentation and feedback

TBC 2010 City of Subiaco Presentation and feedback

TBC 2010 City of Perth Presentation and feedback

TBC 2010 Local residents Presentation and feedback

TBC 2010 Local businesses Presentation and feedback

TBC 2010 CP2010 Steering Committee Review before issue

of 13 HISTORY

THE CAMPUS OVER TIME

The original competition-winning plan by Harold Desbrowe-Annear in 1915 displayed the axial and geometric hallmarks of the grand ‘Beaux Arts’ approach to planning. Other notable features of the plan include the placement of a limited number of buildings in a landscape design rather than the creation of spaces defined by buildings. This is an understandable approach given the unknown future demand for building floor space. The plan is also characterised by the high proportion of college residential buildings to educational buildings. Again, this is understandable given the plan was produced in an era when car- ownership was a highly excusive privilege and there was need for student and staff housing near to campus.

The land south of Myers Street was part of the Bruce residential development and unfortunately never part of the Crawley land grant to the University. Buildings were concentrated on the higher ground to the north and north west as popular conception was that the Crawley lands were mostly ‘swamp’. To get the University to agree to this location the W.A. Premier of the day, Jack Scaddan, commissioned a second tram route from Perth City Centre (one route already existed from Subiaco down Broadway).

In 1927, Professor Leslie Wilkinson prepared what is considered to be the first formative master plan for the Crawley campus and was developed for a projected student population of 2,000 to 3,000. The 1927 plan toned down the grand geometry of the previous plan, and opted for a simple strong axis formed by Ferdinand Street (now Winthrop Avenue), the Court of Honour (now Whitfield Court), the Great Court, an Oval (now James Oval), a Parade Ground (now built out), and Parkway. Other notable features of the 1927 plan are the introduction of a strong courtyard-based approach to the built form, recognition of a tramway network connecting the Campus to Perth and Subiaco, the introduction of on-site staff housing along Myers Street and Parkway, and the compression of the building stock to the west of the campus land to retain a landscaped interface with Matilda Bay.

of 13 By the time Gordon Stephenson prepared the next plan in 1954, the rationale for campus planning had changed quite significantly. The demand for building space had resulted in the spread of future buildings towards Matilda Bay so that buildings would frame James Oval and Great Court, and the strong axial qualities of previous plans were further diminished. However, Stephenson retained the cloistered courtyard form of buildings as displayed by the Wilkinson plan and extended the approach to new buildings on the main campus and the college lands to the north. Other notable features of the 1954 plan include the emergence of car parks as car ownership started to increase, though the proliferation of staff housing reflects that car ownership was still not the norm and most staff preferred to live close to campus.

A plan prepared by A.E ‘Paddy” Clare from the State Public Works Department in 1959 suggested a different approach whereby James Oval was relocated to the east of the campus to provide, along with Riley Oval, a ‘green’ interface to Hackett Drive and Matilda Bay that would enable buildings to be consolidated in the western and centre portions of the campus. Two other interesting feature of the 1959 plan were (1) the creation of a student centre in the middle of campus and (2) the continuation of Myers Street to Hackett Drive to provide a direct route through the campus from the west.

The 1959 plan was quickly superseded by Gordon Stephenson and his 1962 plan, which restored James Oval as a ‘green’ centre piece to the campus and sacrificed Riley Oval in the face of a desire for more building floor space. The Myer Street extension was removed as a road, but still recognised spatially. By 1962, the traditional cloistered courtyard approach to built form was beginning to give way to the modern idiom of stand-along buildings that occupy space rather than frame space. Other interesting features of the 1959 plan include the relative density of proposed development, the expansion of the built form to the southern tip of the campus site, the emergence of the internal ring road along the northern and eastern edges of the campus, and the encroachment of large car parks into the campus. Increased migration after World War II, and the previous neglect of universities through lack of funding, hastened the need for a major building program in the 1960s and Stephenson predicted WA’s only University would have 8,000 students by the late 1980s. There was also the need to create more parking as trams were being phased out, and the car was starting to have a greater impact on campus planning.

The campus master plan was revised slightly by Gordon Stephenson in 1966 and indicated a somewhat denser pattern of buildings, reflecting the increased new building program. Though there were plenty of

of 13 building sites remaining on campus, Stephenson, and his successor Arthur Bunbury, had the foresight to see the day when this would not be the case, and a programme of acquiring properties between campus and Broadway started in the 1960s. Today, the University owns 40% of this land area.

of 13 The next revision to the campus master plan was in 1975 by Arthur Bunbury. The master plan remained very similar to the previous iterations of campus planning by Gordon Stephenson. Notable points of departure of the 1975 plan included the aim of not allowing car-parking to exceed 10% of the campus site area, thus heralding a cap on car-parking provision, albeit only for on-grade parking, and a greater emphasis on retaining the green spaces. In the 1975 plan, the Oak Lawn was reinstated and Riley Oval was retained to a greater extent, and the student population was projected to be a maximum of 12,000.

The 1990 campus master plan by R.J. ‘Gus’ Ferguson also followed the broad intent of the Stephenson and Bunbury plans that preceded it. However, Plan 1990 placed even greater emphasis on the retention of landscape spaces with Riley Oval and Oak Lawn given greater prominence, Prescott Court given a stronger relationship to the river, and a green reserve identified at the southern extremity of the campus.

The 1990 plan also provided a slightly more coherent structure to the southern end of the campus following the connection of Hackett Drive to Princess Road, and started to identify buildings and opportunities beyond the campus boundary.

CAMPUS PLANNING REVIEW 2000

Campus Plan 2000, completed by Gus Ferguson (with the assistance of Bill James, Consultant Landscape Architect, and Frank Roberts, University Architect), stated that if the University was to continue to expand, and to retain the character of ‘buildings in a landscape setting’ to which people had become accustomed, then expansion paths beyond the campus needed to be identified. The 2000 plan identified an expansion of the traditional campus pattern of buildings and green spaces westwards to Broadway in the northern portion of the campus and to Fairway in the southern portion of the campus. Whilst the intent of the plan was to develop a strong pedestrian network, the plan indicated a partial retention of the street network in recognition of the need to grow the campus incrementally as the myriad of landholdings adjacent to the campus was acquired and consolidated into development parcels. The other notable features of the 2000 plan were the introduction of a numerical parking cap of 4250 bays, which followed State Government strategies, and the proposal to increase public transport and other alternatives to parking.

SINCE 2000

Campus Plan 2000 has been well received by the University and State Government. The Plan has been used to site significant development across campus over the past decade, including the construction of seven new buildings: Sciences Library, Business School, 7 Fairway (formerly known as Motorola Stage 1), University Club, Chemical and Molecular Science Building and the Water Sports Building. A new traffic roundabout on Hackett Drive, completed after the Business School was opened in 2009, forms the new South entrance flagged in CP2000.

While many of these developments were foreseen in Campus Plan 2000, others such as 7 Fairway (Motorola Stage 1) came out of opportunity rather than planned expansion. This has led in part to a process of preparing mini-structure plans (precinct plans) to demonstrate how proposed development can be integrated with existing built form and landscape, while respecting campus planning and design principles. These precinct studies were collected into a compendium by Facilities Management in 2008.

Following Campus Plan 2000, the W.A. Planning Commission requested the University and City of Subiaco jointly prepare a structure plan for the off campus area between campus and Broadway. Two attempts (Crawley Village Concept Plan: Development Planning Strategies 2003, and Crawley Village Structure Plan: Masterplan Consultants 2008) failed and the University believes (1) the setting up of a different form of planning control and (2) the preparation of small scale structure plans (precinct plans) will lead to more positive planning outcomes for both the University and community.

The University is reaching a point where the main Crawley campus has very few major building sites remaining. Thanks to the foresight of Stephenson, Bunbury and others, the University now owns 40 per

of 13 cent of off-campus properties between Crawley campus and Broadway, and expansion into that area will increase. The University also wishes to pursue a residential university model like Yale and Harvard, requiring students to live on or near campus. The University is planning to provide 400 or more student bedrooms in the off-campus area, as well as increasing the number of beds at residential colleges.

Parking was capped at 4,250 bays on and around the campus under the 2000 Plan no matter how large the campus population increases. 4,250 parking bays were quoted in response to a Department of Planning question as to where staff, students and visitors park, though only 3,300 bays are actually under University control and the remaining bays, mainly provided by local authorities, could be removed at any time. The take up of public transport by students has been considerable and there are now five scheduled bus services from Perth and one from Subiaco, two of which are subsidised by the University. The previous Minister for Planning proposed the return of Light Rail, and the chosen routes were little different from the tramlines removed in the 1950s.

The parking freeze has worked despite an increase in the University population from 14,500 students in 1999 to some 20,500 students in 2009, with staff numbers also rising pro rata. This sees the population of the University now larger than many of the local authorities in the western suburbs, and reflects the changes in required infrastructure and services from that of a small University Campus to that of a small city, e.g. Busselton.

External studies and policies have had a considerable impact upon the form and the future likely form of the campus. State Government’s Network City, produced as a strategic plan for Perth following the ‘Dialogue with the City’ workshops, sets out the need to grow in infrastructure rich areas and along transport routes.

The next stage of Network City - Directions 2031 (2009) - elevated the UWA/QEII nexus to a Strategic Specialised Centre status, as discussed in the next section on Context. Directions 2031 recognises that future growth, particularly institutional, commercial and residential growth, will be significant. The UWA/QEII activity centre is likely to have a population of some 40,000 people, equivalent to the City of Albany.

of 13 Other reviews such as the Bradley Report into Higher Education are beginning to have an impact on the University through the removal of a cap on student places and the goal of 40% of 25-34 year olds with an undergraduate degree by 2020 (compared to the current 29%). This may have a significant impact on student intake over the next few years, and the campus could meet its growth target, 25,000 actual students by 2020, earlier than anticipated.

The ramifications of the University’s own Future Framework – a new course structure – will also need to be considered particularly in its effect on the distribution of resources across campus and changes to infrastructure.

Campus Plan 2010 will need to consider the physical planning consequences of issues such as declining University income from Government, changing learning environments, skills shortages, new technologies, climate change, fossil fuel depletion as well as the ongoing demand for additional accommodation and services for expanding student numbers.

A major lesson learned from the last ten years is that future campus plans must be flexible so as to meet unforeseen circumstances, and to enable the University to take advantage of development opportunities. The University has strengthened its asset base, and constructed a building of architectural merit off- campus, despite planning constraints, at 7 Fairway.

The need for constant review and questioning of campus planning and design principles has led to better design solutions, and highlighted the need for a less prescriptive campus plan with more emphasis on these principles.

Papers to be prepared in the coming months will highlight in detail what has happened since 2000 in particular disciplines.

CONTEXT

Two plans impact on the strategic thinking behind Campus Plan 2010 and place it into a planning context; one was prepared by the University in 2007 – UniverCity; and the other prepared in 2009 by the State Government – Directions 2031.

‘UNIVERCITY’: STRATEGIC ASSET REVIEW OF UNIVERSITY LANDHOLDINGS

Following a series of workshops that were held in 2006 with senior University academic and administrative staff, a clear set of themes emerged in relation to the future of the University of Western Australia. Whilst a number of scenarios, which built on these themes, were presented at the second workshop, there was no clear consensus as to a specific direction.

As a consequence, it is important for the University to pursue an asset management strategy and encourage a regional planning framework that allows a high degree of flexibility for the University, without compromising the themes that emerged from the second workshop. These themes included:

 Retaining the University Crawley Campus as the ‘Alma Mater’ or focal point for university activity, rather than having multiple undergraduate campuses with a duplication of administration and other resources;  Working the University assets harder to underpin funding for educational programs and infrastructure;  Vigorously pursuing opportunities for high quality research programs in partnership with other organisations;  Providing sufficient land and/or floorspace to establish a high quality research environment;

of 13  Improving accessibility to the University by alternative transport modes to the private motor vehicle, especially in the face of future escalating demand for a diminishing supply of fossil fuels;  Improving the diversity and proximity of activities to encourage walking and cycling between them, and reduce car dependence;  Providing more opportunities of staff and students to live within close proximity of the University (and QEII);  Retaining the ‘garden’ character (perhaps City Beautiful) of the University’s Crawley Campus and extending its influence into Crawley Village and up to QEII; and  Improving the physical and educational relationship between the University’s Crawley Campus and the QEII health campus.

The concept of UniverCity is a vision for a regional planning framework that allows the University to pursue all of the above themes and to grow, mature and form relationships with other activities in the region. Furthermore, because UniverCity extends far beyond just the University’s own landholdings, the University has the flexibility to pursue the development of UniverCity at a level of intensity of its own choosing – whether independently or through partnering with other organisations and Government.

However, UniverCity will not emerge on its own. It is a concept that needs to be championed, and as a major landholder, employer, and focus of educational, recreational, health, commercial and cultural activity in the region, the University is well placed to be that champion. In an era when all levels of Government are constrained in regard to planning resources, the University is well placed to step forwards and assist.

City of Subiaco, in its recent submission to State Government with regard to Local Authority amalgamations and boundary changes, cited UniverCity as a supporting document.

DIRECTIONS 2031

Directions 2031 can be considered the next evolution of Network City, the previous strategic framework guiding the development of the Metropolitan area. D2031 identifies the UWA/QEII centre as a Strategic Specialist Centre, diagram next page, recognising the importance of the centre to health, education and employment. D2031 works towards making Perth a liveable city, rather than just continuing sprawled expansion. The supporting Draft Centres policy recommends the development of additional higher density housing in this area as a way of meeting significant infill housing targets. Residential densities of 40 dwellings per gross hectare are targeted (well in excess of what is existing and targeting approximately an R80 density).

The document further emphasises the need to link this centre with the CBD as well as other educational centres, such as Curtin University. The linkages between these centres will be key to ensuring that the City is a liveable place with options about where to work and live. D2031 will guide the off campus component of the Centre’s development by insisting on good transport linkages, higher density and for the day-to-day needs of users of the centre to be met on site.

State Government has commissioned the Urban Design Centre (partners UWA and DoP) to prepare the Strategic Specialist Centre Plan, which will include the outcomes from Campus Plan 2010.