Contested Territorialities in Millers and Dawes Points, Sydney, Australia

Helen Karathomas

A thesis in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences Faculty of Science University of New South Wales

September 2015

THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES - Thesis/Dissertation Sheet

Surname: Karathomas First name: Helen Abbreviation for degree as given in the University calendar: PhD School: Biological Earth and Environmental Sciences Faculty: Science Title: Contested Territorialities in Millers and Dawes Points, Sydney, Australia.

Abstract (350 words maximum): Millers and Dawes Points are two harbour side, inner city suburbs of Sydney that have been subject to contests over space. Because of Millers and Dawes Points’ histories, the area contains some of Sydney’s oldest residential housing. More recently, certain areas within Millers and Dawes Points have experienced residential and commercial gentrification. This thesis extends existing gentrification studies through a middle range framework, which includes the concepts of ‘territoriality’, ‘sense of place’ and ‘placelessness’. This theoretical framework increases our understandings of the changes occurring in local areas.

Nestled within the suburbs of Millers and Dawes Points are pockets of social housing occupied by residents who are dubbed the ‘traditional community’. The traditional community live cheek by jowl with some of the area’s wealthier residents who reside in the suburbs’ ‘privatopias’ (McKenzie 1994, 9). These wealthier residents are gentrifiers who I have labelled as the ‘new community’ in this thesis. This thesis identifies how these communities have developed distinct senses of and attachments to place that have been constructed and manifested within Millers and Dawes Points’ complex and contested terrain.

The recent sales of social housing in Millers and Dawes Points as well as the local ‘Barangaroo’ redevelopment are explored as an exemplar of territorialisation. Using territoriality theory (Sack 1986), this thesis describes how different stakeholder groups have enacted acts of territorialisation to gain control of this urban space. These enactors of territoriality included the New South Wales state government, residents of the new community and other commercial corporations.

Declaration relating to disposition of project thesis/dissertation I hereby grant to the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or in part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all property rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation. I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstracts International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only).

…………………………………… …………………………………… .……………………...……. Signature Witness Date

The University recognises that there may be exceptional circumstances requiring restrictions on copying or conditions on use. Requests for restriction for a period of up to 2 years must be made in writing. Requests for a longer period of restriction may be considered in exceptional circumstances and require the approval of the Dean of Graduate Research.

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of completion of requirements for

Award:

ABSTRACT

Millers and Dawes Points are two harbour side, inner city suburbs of Sydney with cultural and historical significance. As an economically valuable and culturally significant part of inner Sydney, Millers and Dawes Points have been subject to contests over space. Because of Millers and Dawes Points’ histories, the area contains some of Sydney’s oldest residential housing. More recently, certain areas within Millers and Dawes Points have experienced residential and commercial gentrification. Nestled within these suburbs are pockets of social housing occupied by residents who, for the purposes of this thesis, I have dubbed the ‘traditional community’. Many of these residents have ancestral lineages extending back to the individuals who worked in a variety of occupations on the now glamorous wharves during Sydney’s maritime period (c. 1850-1920). The residents of the traditional community live cheek by jowl with some of the area’s wealthier residents who reside in the suburbs’ ‘privatopias’ (McKenzie 1994, 9). These wealthier residents are gentrifiers who I have labelled as the ‘new community’ in this thesis. Although residents of the traditional and new communities reside within the same two suburbs, they have developed connections and attachments to the places around them in different ways. This thesis identifies two broad trends that can be summarised as two distinct senses of and attachments to place that have been constructed and manifested within Millers and Dawes Points’ complex and contested terrain.

While Millers and Dawes Points have historically experienced many contests over space, the recent sales of social housing in these suburbs are explored as an exemplar of territorialisation. Using territoriality theory (Sack 1986), this thesis describes how different stakeholder groups have enacted acts of territorialisation to gain control of this urban space. In this location, I have identified various stakeholders that have performed acts of territoriality to execute their visions for this part of inner Sydney. These enactors of territoriality included the New South Wales state government (that controls much of this urban space and in particular, is the overseeing body in charge of social housing), residents of the new community and other commercial corporations. This thesis has extended this analysis of territorialisation to include the current redevelopment of a 22-hectare brownfield site that sits adjacent to Millers and Dawes Points, now known as ‘Barangaroo’, because the

ii redevelopment of this precinct has been of great significance to the traditional and new communities.

This thesis is also concerned with how these acts of territoriality have posed a threat to the traditional community and the senses of place experienced by its members. In particular, the outcomes of these territorial actions were causing members of the traditional community to feel increasingly ‘placeless’. This thesis presents evidence from the residents of Millers and Dawes Points showing that although residents have not been passive recipients of the changes occurring within their suburbs (including the Barangaroo redevelopment), the politics of resisting these changes has been difficult. In this thesis, I demonstrate how the forces of territoriality have limited the abilities of Millers and Dawes Points’ residents, and in particular the traditional community, to resist the transformations occurring within this unique Sydney location.

The battles of territoriality unfolding in Millers and Dawes Points are synonymous with the contemporary contests of place that can be found in other global cities, particularly with waterfront locations, such as in London and New York. However, Millers and Dawes Points provide a particularly rich and important case study because its traditional community maintain significant ties to the colonial settlement of Sydney. This thesis provides an account of the rapidly reconfiguring geographies of Millers and Dawes Points and the territorial contests of place that have unfolded. Millers and Dawes Points provide an important geographic example of deeply rooted histories colliding with the changing needs and values in the rapidly developing global city of Sydney.

iii

ORIGINALITY STATEMENT

‘I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial proportions of material which have been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project's design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged.’

Signed ……………………………………………......

Date ……………………………………………......

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Dr Wendy Shaw, for her invaluable guidance and expert advice while undertaking this thesis. Your help and willingness to share your knowledge have been greatly appreciated.

I have endless gratitude for my parents and their patience, support and understanding over the years. I may not often express how indebted I am for all you both have done. Thank you to Connie Merlino, John Karathomas and John Paul Merlino for providing thoughts, advice and ideas for the improvement of this thesis. I am fortunate to be surrounded by such supportive and loving family members.

I am especially grateful to Ingrid Fernandez for her friendship and endless support. Your moral support, humour and optimism helped me to persevere. Many thanks to Rebecca Cross for the ongoing supply of advice and encouragement.

Special thanks to my nephew and niece who brighten my mornings.

Finally, thank you to the residents of Millers and Dawes Points as this thesis would not have been possible without you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... V

LIST OF FIGURES ...... XII

LIST OF TABLES ...... XV

LIST OF BOXES ...... XVI

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... XVII

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 A snapshot of Millers and Dawes Points (and Barangaroo) ...... 3 1.2 Sydney’s (social) housing stress ...... 5 1.2.1 Social housing stress in Millers and Dawes Points ...... 7 1.2.2 A synopsis of Millers and Dawes Points and thesis narrative ...... 8 1.3 Theoretical framework: ‘Sense of place’ and ‘territoriality’ in Millers and Dawes Points ...... 9 1.3.1 Senses of place in Millers and Dawes Points ...... 10 1.3.2 Acts of territorialisation and a sense of placelessness in Millers and Dawes Points .. 11 1.4 Aims, objectives and thesis outline ...... 12

CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 15 2.1 Introduction ...... 15 Part 1 ...... 15 2.2 Conceptualising gentrification ...... 15 2.2.1 Consumption factors of gentrification ...... 16 2.2.2 Constructing gentrifier identities through consumption ...... 16 2.2.3 Production theories of gentrification forming the post-industrial city ...... 17 2.2.4 Combining consumption and production theories of gentrification ...... 18 Part 2 ...... 19 2.3 Gentrification, neoliberalism and middle range theories ...... 19

2.3.1 Gentrification and neoliberalism ...... 19 2.3.2 Gentrification and middle range theories ...... 23 2.4 Gentrification induced displacement and sense(s) of place ...... 25 2.4.1 Conceptualising sense(s) of place in Millers and Dawes Points ...... 28 2.5 Conceptualising territoriality in Millers and Dawes Points ...... 33 2.5.1 Sack’s (1986) three interdependent relationships of territoriality ...... 37 2.5.2 A return to territoriality ...... 39 2.6 A sense of placelessness ...... 44 2.7 Critical humanist geographies ...... 46 2.8 Conclusion ...... 48

CHAPTER 3 - METHODOLOGY...... 49 3.1 Introduction: The case study method ...... 49 3.2 Social history ...... 50 3.3 Survey design and development ...... 51 3.3.1 Piloting the survey instrument ...... 52 3.3.2 Survey distribution ...... 54 3.3.2.1 Survey response rate ...... 56 3.4 Photo-elicitation and semi structured in-depth interviewing ...... 57 3.4.1 Auto-photography limitations ...... 61 3.5 Participant observation ...... 61 3.6 Ethical and legal considerations ...... 62 3.7 Data analysis ...... 63 3.7.1 Auto-photographical interpretation ...... 66 3.7.2 Secondary data analysis ...... 67 3.7.3 Triangulation ...... 70 3.8 Positionality and reflexivity ...... 70 3.8.1 Power relations in auto-photography and in-depth interviewing ...... 72 3.8.1.1 Positionality in the interview setting ...... 73 3.9 Conclusion ...... 74

CHAPTER 4 – THE SOCIAL HISTORIES OF MILLERS AND DAWES POINTS: THE MAKING OF SYDNEY’S ‘URBAN VILLAGE’ ...... 76 4.1 Introduction ...... 76

vii

4.2 Aboriginal occupation ...... 77 4.3 Colonial settlement: 1788-1900 ...... 77 4.4 (Post-)colonial settlement 1900-1950: The seeds of maritime culture and the traditional community ...... 82 4.5 Millers and Dawes Points: The beginnings of a gentrification story...... 86 4.5.1 Trade union action and the Green Bans ...... 89 4.6 Further development in Millers and Dawes Points ...... 90 4.6.1 Transfer of housing responsibilities ...... 91 4.7 Gentrifying Walsh Bay ...... 93 4.7.1 Living in Millers and Dawes Points ...... 97 4.7.1.1 Labelling the traditional and new communities ...... 99 4.8 Resident protests against Walsh Bay’s redevelopment ...... 102 4.9 Conclusion ...... 103

CHAPTER 5 - SENSES OF PLACE IN MILLERS AND DAWES POINTS ...... 105 5.1 Introduction ...... 105 Part 1 ...... 106 5.2 The construction of the traditional community’s senses of place ...... 106 5.2.1 ‘Birthplace of the nation’ ...... 106 5.2.2 Generational linkages ...... 109 5.2.3 Childhood experiences in Millers and Dawes Points ...... 110 5.2.4 The traditional community’s social interactions ...... 113 5.2.4.1 Uninvited ‘outsiders’ ...... 117 5.2.4.1.1 Uninvited ‘blow-ins’ ...... 118 5.2.4.1.2 Uninvited new social housing residents ...... 120 5.2.4.1.3 Uninvited members of the new community ...... 121 Part 2 ...... 125 5.3 Constructing the new community’s senses of place ...... 125 5.3.1 Drawing on the ‘urban village’ atmosphere ...... 126 5.3.1.1 Marginalising social housing residents through the sales of social housing ..... 131 5.3.2 Capitalising on history and heritage architecture ...... 138 5.4 Conclusions ...... 147

CHAPTER 6 - TERRITORIALITY: CONTESTS OVER URBAN SPACE...... 149

viii

6.1 Introduction ...... 149 Part 1 ...... 150 6.2 Governmental territoriality in Millers and Dawes Points ...... 150 6.2.1 Neo-liberal paradigms and the re-imaging Millers and Dawes Points as an act of classification ...... 151 6.2.2 Promoting a new vision for Millers and Dawes Points ...... 155 6.2.2.1 Governmental management: Lessons from the past and present ...... 155 6.2.2.2 Administrative scare tactics ...... 161 6.2.3 Governmental enforcement of a new vision for Millers and Dawes Points ...... 165 6.2.3.1 Social Housing: ‘Vandalism by neglect’ ...... 166 6.2.3.2 Untenanted social housing ...... 170 6.2.3.3 Social housing renovations ...... 174 6.2.3.4 Ninety nine year lease conditions ...... 175 Part 2 ...... 179 6.3 Territoriality and the new community in Millers and Dawes Points ...... 179 6.3.1 Re-imaging Millers and Dawes Points ...... 179 6.3.2 The new community’s vision for Millers and Dawes Points ...... 181 6.3.3 New community exercises control over Millers and Dawes Points ...... 186 6.3.3.1 Re-shaping the new version of Millers and Dawes Points ...... 187 6.3.3.2 Territorialising through ‘privatopias’ and place names ...... 191 6.3.3.3 Responding to fears of crime in Millers and Dawes Points ...... 199 Part 3 ...... 202 6.4 A Sense of placelessness and a politics of resistance ...... 202 6.4.1 Placelessness and the arrival of new residents ...... 202 6.4.2 Placelessness and the sales of social housing ...... 206 6.4.3 Placelessness, Walsh Bay and the reduction of general services ...... 208 6.4.4 A politics of resistance ...... 211 6.5 Conclusions ...... 216

CHAPTER 7 – TERRITORIALISING BARANGAROO: TRANSFORMATION THROUGH REDEVELOPMENT ...... 220 7.1 Introduction ...... 220 7.2 A snapshot of Barangaroo ...... 221 7.2.1 Planning Barangaroo and an overview of community responses ...... 225

7.3 Territorialising Barangaroo South ...... 229 7.3.1 Neo-liberal paradigms and the re-imaging Barangaroo South as an act of classification ...... 229 7.3.2 Communicating Barangaroo South: Promoting a commercial arena ...... 233 7.3.2.1 Place naming Barangaroo ...... 234 7.3.2.2 East Darling Harbour urban design competition and Concept Plan ...... 238 7.3.3 Governmental enforcement: A new commercial vision for Barangaroo South ...... 241 7.3.3.1 Tendering Barangaroo South and the ninety nine year leases ...... 242 7.3.3.2 Barangaroo South’s commercial office space...... 243 7.3.3.3 A hotel and casino for Barangaroo South ...... 246 7.3.3.4 Remediating Barangaroo South ...... 251 7.3.3.5 Residential space in Barangaroo South ...... 254 7.3.4 A rising sense of placelessness for members of the traditional community ...... 257 7.4 Territorialisation of Barangaroo’s Headland Park ...... 263 7.5 Community mistrust and a politics of resistance ...... 267 7.6 Conclusion ...... 273

CHAPTER 8 - CONCLUSIONS ...... 277 8.1 Introduction ...... 277 8.2 Thesis summary ...... 277 8.3 Theoretical contributions to gentrification studies and a way forward...... 282 8.4 Control over urban space ...... 284 8.5 Claims to urban space ...... 285 8.6 A critical moment in time ...... 287 8.7 Postscript ...... 288

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 294

APPENDICES ...... 331 APPENDIX I: Socio-economic attributes of participants based on community type: .. 331 APPENDIX II: Pilot survey ...... 332 APPENDIX III: Survey cover letter ...... 336 APPENDIX IV: Survey advertisement ...... 337 APPENDIX V: Survey for social housing residents in Millers Point ...... 338

APPENDIX VII: Survey for private dwelling residents in Dawes Point ...... 350 APPENDIX VII: Community Eyes booklet ...... 356 APPENDIX IX: Community Eyes’ guide ...... 395 APPENDIX X: Participant observation notes ...... 396 APPENDIX XI: Survey code descriptions for data entry ...... 397 APPENDIX XII: General Millers and Dawes Points’ resident in-depth interview questions...... 411

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Location of Millers and Dawes Points highlighted in red and blue respectively. The Rocks, which neighbours Millers and Dawes Points, is highlighted in green...... 3 Figure 1.2: Streets within Millers and Dawes Points...... 5 Figure 1.3: Location of the 22-hectare ‘Barangaroo’ development within Millers and Dawes Points highlighted in yellow...... 5

Figure 3.1: The suburb boundaries I applied to Millers and Dawes Points. Dawes Point’s Private Dwellings are highlighted in red and concentrated on the northern foreshore of Millers and Dawes Points. Millers Point’s Private dwellings are highlighted in yellow and located at the southern end of Millers and Dawes Points. Millers Point’s Social Housing are highlighted in blue and located mainly in the centre of Millers and Dawes Points...... 56 Figure 3.2: A diagrammatical representation of the archival system used for this thesis. Folders are mainly divided by location. Within these main folders, sub-folders were created based on the topics covered within this thesis...... 69

Figure 4.1: Bradley’s (1788) map is the earliest known map of Sydney. Map has been drawn with north facing the base of the image. The red boxed area I have added onto the map shows the settlement of convicts and guards at Sydney Cove, Port Jackson now known as Circular Quay (State Library of New South Wales 2008). Millers and Dawes Points are not located on the map but are positioned off map directly towards the western side of the British settlement...... 78 Figure 4.2: Caporn’s map of Sydney in 1836 depicts Millers and Dawes Points as still relatively untouched but growing into a commercial district. I have annotated Caporn’s (1836) map (in red) to provide context and highlight its main features such as the area’s new wharves...... 79 Figure 4.3: I have annotated Baron’s (1854) map (in red) to show that the number of working wharves increased along with commercial and residential activities in Millers and Dawes Points and Sydney’s surrounds as compared to Figure 4.2...... 81 Figure 4.4: Construction of the Sydney Harbour Bridge in 1932. Construction shows the close proximity of the Sydney Harbour Bridge to housing within Millers and Dawes Points. I have indicated (in red) the physical barrier between two residential areas by the presence of the Bridge. The Sydney Harbour Bridge separated Millers and Dawes Points from the rest of Sydney’s inner city, which contributed to the area’s ‘urban village’ characterisation (Fitzgerald and Keating 2009)...... 85 Figure 4.5: The Rocks (located in the foreground) with the proposed redevelopment plan as submitted by James Wallace Pty. Ltd. The original layout of The Rocks is barely recognisable as it is replaced by 17 low to high-rise buildings. The absence of any structures in Millers and Dawes Points (located in the background) suggests that the area was perceived as an ‘empty space’ and of little consequence to The Rocks and the rest of Sydney at this point in time...... 87 Figure 4.6: Publication released by the City of Sydney Council regarding plans for Millers and Dawes Points. While Millers and Dawes Points are labelled on the map, they are not considered as suburbs and are clearly outlined within the precinct of ‘West Rocks’...... 91 Figure 4.7: The Walsh Bay precinct highlighted in red and located within Millers and Dawes Points...... 93 Figure 4.8: Western view of Walsh Bay. On the left side of photograph lie the redeveloped residential and commercial shore sheds, which were originally used during the maritime xii industry. In the centre of the photograph is pier eight/nine, which is now used for commercial offices. In the right foreground of the image are yachts that are moored to pier six/seven (the residential pier). The conversion of these buildings into residential apartments began in 2004...... 97 Figure 4.9: Occupations of Millers and Dawes Points’ residents...... 101 Figure 4.10: Tenancy types across the traditional and new communities...... 101 Figure 4.11: Duration of residence in Millers and Dawes Points...... 102

Figure 5.1: The importance of history to the identity of Millers and Dawes Points...... 109 Figure 5.2 (also Figure 4.11): Duration of residence in Millers and Dawes Points...... 111 Figure 5.3: The traditional and new communities’ connection to the wider community. .... 115 Figure 5.4: Resident descriptions of the character of Millers and Dawes Points...... 123 Figure 5.5: Level of resident satisfaction living in Millers and Dawes Points...... 125 Figure 5.6: Resident description of their social relationships...... 130 Figure 5.7: Resident views towards the social housing sell offs in Millers and Dawes Points...... 132 Figure 5.8: The new community’s concerns about social housing residents...... 134 Figure 5.9: Why residents lived in Millers and Dawes Points...... 140 Figure 5.10: Walsh Bay Plaques. These plaques are located at Stop Six of the Walsh Bay Partnership’s ‘Heritage Walk’ (Hickson Road)...... 141 Figure 5.11: Perceived accuracy of the Walsh Bay plaques...... 142 Figure 5.12: Examples of industrial heritage that have been preserved and adapted into the Walsh Bay redevelopment as public art...... 144 Figure 5.13: Top to bottom, Images of ‘The Parbury Ruins’ and ‘The Paddock’. Both images show the foundations of cottages that were built during Colonial settlement in Millers and Dawes Points...... 146

Figure 6.1: Looking East along Trinity Avenue, Millers Point. The balcony of this social housing dwelling is bolstered by wooden scaffolding props (located in the centre of the photo) installed by the dwelling’s residents...... 168 Figure 6.2: Looking North along Merriman Street, Millers Point. A vacated social housing property, with the words ‘abandoned’ and ‘squaters [sic] needed’ inscribed onto its grimy windows. The graffiti (of unknown author) alerted passers-by that the home was untenanted and available for (illegal) occupation...... 170 Figure 6.3: Various images of a social housing property located on Lower Fort Street put to the private real estate market on a 99-year lease. An inspection during viewing times revealed the severe state of disrepair both internal and external to the property. Major renovations are required such as the replacement of flooring, walls and ceilings...... 172 Figure 6.4 (also Figure 5.7): Resident views towards the social housing sell offs in Millers and Dawes Points...... 182 Figure 6.5 (also Figure 5.8): The new community’s concerns about social housing residents...... 185 Figure 6.6: Image of a sandstone cliff ‘wrapping’ Dawes Point. The sandstone cliff is a major physical barrier that makes entry into Walsh Bay difficult for individuals who are not highly mobile...... 189 Figure 6.7: Images of stairs that allow pedestrian access to Walsh Bay...... 190 Figure 6.8: Looking North along Windmill Street, Millers Point. The bollards are located in the foreground of the photograph and are designed to block vehicles passing between Windmill Street and Pottinger Street...... 194 Figure 6.9: Rates of safeness amongst resident in Millers and Dawes Points...... 200

xiii

Figure 6.10: Resident views of changes to Millers and Dawes Points over the last five years...... 203 Figure 6.11: The changes in Millers and Dawes Points as observed by the traditional and new communities...... 204 Figure 6.12: The traditional and new communities’ concerns for the future of Millers and Dawes Points...... 208 Figure 6.13: Resident visitation rates to Walsh Bay eateries...... 211 Figure 6.14: Examples of Ruark Lewis’ artwork in Millers and Dawes Points...... 214

Figure 7.1: ‘Barangaroo’ (highlighted in yellow) is a vacant 22-hectare site, which lies adjacent to Millers and Dawes Points (highlighted in red and blue respectively)...... 220 Figure 7.2: South Eastern view of Millers and Dawes Points from Barangaroo. Photograph depicts the sandstone cliff that acted as a physical barrier, which separated Millers and Dawes Points from Barangaroo...... 222 Figure 7.3: Aerial view of the proposed Barangaroo development, separated into three sections: the Headland Park, Barangaroo Central and Barangaroo South...... 224 Figure 7.4: Artist’s impression of the proposed Barangaroo South precinct...... 224 Figure 7.5 (also Figure 6.12): The traditional and new communities’ concerns for the future of Millers and Dawes Points...... 226 Figure 7.6: Residents views regarding the Barangaroo development...... 227 Figure 7.7: The Hungry Mile (indicated by the black arrow) as noted by the Memorandum of Agreement and recognised by the Geographical Names Board. However, the area is more commonly referred to as ‘Barangaroo’ (highlighted in yellow) as it was designated as the area’s official suburb name...... 236 Figure 7.8: Barangaroo’s urban design competition winner’s successful plan located within the red brackets...... 239 Figure 7.9: Barangaroo’s Concept Plan lodged on the 13th of October 2006. The design was based on the winning HTBI scheme and incorporated the competition jury’s amendments. 239 Figure 7.10: Image of Lend Lease’s proposed hotel protruding into Sydney’s Harbour. .... 247 Figure 7.11: An artist’s impression of Packer’s proposed hotel-casino planned for Barangaroo Central (from above)...... 249

Figure 8.1: Examples of yellow signs and ribbons placed outside social housing residences along High Street, Millers Point...... 290

xiv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Contemporary literatures relying on Sack’s (1986) framework to explain relationships between external and/or local factors and places (in alphabetical order) ...... 42

Table 3.1: Summary of numbers of surveys distributed to the traditional and new communities and surveys returned...... 57 Table 3.2: Examples of shorter responses provided by residents...... 65 Table 3.3: Description of themes revealed through the images residents captured of Millers and Dawes Points and its surrounds...... 66 Table 3.4: Secondary source research scope...... 68

Table 7.1: Barangaroo’s total GFA changes through its modifications (Sussex and Penn 2011)...... 225 Table 7.2: Barangaroo’s Concept Plan design specifics (Sussex and Penn 2011)...... 239

LIST OF BOXES

Box 5.1: Millers and Dawes Points’ childrens’ songs...... 113

Box 6.1: Chronology of successive NSW governments’ management of social housing in Millers and Dawes Points...... 157 Box 6.2: Snapshot of the 99-year leases...... 176

xvi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Meaning

CBD Central Business District

EP&A Act Environmental Planning and Assessment Act

GFA Gross Floor Area

HTBI Hill Thalis Architecture & Urban Projects, Paul Berkemeier and Jane Irwin Landscape Architecture

ICAC Independent Commission Against Corruption

LGA Local Governmental Area

MD Major Development

NSW New South Wales

RRAG Rocks Resident Action Group

SCRA Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority

SEPP 55 State Environmental Planning Policy 55

xvii

Chapter 1 – INTRODUCTION

Millers and Dawes Points are two small inner city suburbs situated in the globalising city of Sydney. The suburbs possess many unique features such as their harbour side location, which treats onlookers to iconic views of Sydney’s harbour, the Opera House and the Sydney Harbour Bridge. The uniqueness of Millers and Dawes Points also rests on the historical attributes of these places. During pre-European settlement, Millers and Dawes Points were occupied the by local Indigenous people (the Cadigal people). Later, the area became a convict settlement and eventually, a thriving industrial town. The geographic area encompassing Millers and Dawes Points is widely known as the ‘birthplace of the nation’ and is considered significant to the local community and the wider Australian nation (Karskens 2003). Because of these histories, Millers and Dawes Points boasts some of Australia’s oldest residential houses, churches and bars (‘pubs’) (Fitzgerald and Keating 2009). More recently, Millers and Dawes Points have experienced the well-recognised global phenomenon of gentrification, whereby these suburbs have been transformed from an industrial to post- industrial landscape (Shaw 2006). Consequently, the area is now predominately used for residential purposes.

Part of Millers and Dawes Points’ uniqueness is its geography. The suburbs have remained relatively untouched by commercial redevelopment pressures common to other global cities. For example, the suburbs lack a significant concentration of commercial and financial services that are characteristic of Sydney’s nearby Central Business District (CBD). In addition, Millers and Dawes Points’ neighbouring suburb, The Rocks, has become heavily commodified and is a popular tourist destination (Morgan 1991; Bennett 1993). In contrast to The Rocks, Millers and Dawes Points do not receive the same numbers of tourists nor do the suburbs have as many commercial venues that cater to the tourism industry.

In contrast to the remainder of Sydney’s inner city, Millers and Dawes Points have maintained a quiet suburban atmosphere and passed relatively unnoticed in recent times. Therefore, many people who visit and work within Sydney’s inner city each day are

1 unfamiliar with the area (Fitzgerald and Keating 2009). Yet, those familiar with the Millers and Dawes Points (especially the residents of the area) are proud of the precinct and affectionately refer it to as Sydney’s own ‘urban village’1. I have incorporated the title ‘urban village’ throughout this thesis because it is a description that was constructed by the residents of Millers and Dawes Points, who know these suburbs best.

Comprising part of the community residing in Millers and Dawes Points is a population of social housing2 residents. Some of these social housing residents are able to trace their family lineage back to the individuals who worked on Millers and Dawes Points’ wharves during the industrial period (c. 1820 to 1950). These social housing tenants live cheek by jowl with newer non-social housing (private) residents who have entered the area in the wake of recent residential development. These newer private housing residents predominately reside within high-rise residential towers and waterfront condominiums built around the old wharves, which sit in stark contrast to older low-rise terrace housing occupied by social housing residents.

Arising from the juxtaposition of housing types and resident demographics are contests occurring over space within Sydney’s own ‘urban village’. These contests form the main concern of this thesis. As inner city property becomes increasingly rare and thus, more expensive (this is further discussed in Section 1.2), Millers and Dawes Points have become appealing to the New South Wales (NSW) state government (that currently owns the social housing stock), private corporations and inner city dwellers who have sought to capitalise on this harbour side location. These stakeholder groups have used these historically and culturally significant suburbs in accordance with their own visions of the area. This attention has placed Millers and Dawes Points’ social housing population in a vulnerable position. The unfolding contestations over Millers and Dawes Points’ space has generated fear amongst some residents of the area and has also caught the attention of the media (see for example Norrie and Pearlman 2006; Wainwright, Norrie and Maley 2006; Wainwright 2006). It was during my undergraduate Honours year (in 2006) that these ongoing media dialogues inspired me to explore these battles occurring over urban space using a human geographical focus. While my Honours research was primarily a gentrification study that was concentrated on

1 The ‘urban village’ label was also popularised by the authors who titled their books ‘Millers Point: The urban village’ (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991; Fitzgerald and Keating 2009). These books documented the histories of the area. 2 Social housing is also referred to as ‘public housing’ in Australia. 2 another part of inner Sydney, I was interested in how other struggles were occurring in an exclusive and iconic part of Sydney, which was also home to social housing residents. Thus, using Millers and Dawes Points as a case study, I was able to continue my gentrification research and add a new dimension to how gentrification operates, which is explained further in Section 1.3.

This introductory chapter begins by describing the suburbs of Millers and Dawes Points, including the former shipping container precinct of ‘Barangaroo’, which adjoins Millers and Dawes Points and is currently subject to redevelopment. I begin a process of situating Millers and Dawes Points’ struggles over space amidst Sydney’s (social and private) housing stress. The following section details how I have drawn from wider narratives of ‘sense of place’ and ‘territoriality’ literatures and why these concepts are relevant to my discussion. I conclude this chapter by describing the aims of this thesis and how my chapters are organised to address these aims.

1.1 A snapshot of Millers and Dawes Points (and Barangaroo) Millers and Dawes Points are 0.2 and 0.1 square kilometres respectively and are displayed in Figure 1.1 (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011b). Originally occupied by the local Cadigal people, Millers and Dawes Points later became a maritime town that supported the whaling and wool industries (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991). These industrial activities were so vital to Sydney’s economy that the NSW government provided Millers and Dawes Point’s wharf workers with local housing (Fitzgerald and Keating 2009). During the maritime period (c. 1820 to 1950), the plague (in 1900) and later, the Depression (in the 1930s) struck Millers and Dawes Points. The local population relied on each other during these difficult times and became so self sufficient that they founded the ‘urban village’ title given to the area (this ‘urban village’ atmosphere is further explored in Chapter 4) (Fitzgerald and Keating 2009).

Figure 1.1 has been removed due to Copyright restrictions

Figure 1.1: Location of Millers and Dawes Points highlighted in red and blue respectively. The Rocks, which neighbours Millers and Dawes Points, is highlighted in green. Source: (Google Earth 7.0 2013d)

Global economic shifts, which included the new international division of labour3, were part of Sydney’s transformation into a global city (Friedmann and Wolff 1982; Stimson 1995). As a result, Sydney’s inner city is characterised by a concentration of services that are focussed on the financial and commercial sectors (Bounds and Morris 2006). This concentration of services in inner city Sydney sits in contrast to Millers and Dawes Points because the suburbs have remained predominately residential, despite Sydney’s transformation into a contemporary global city. The ‘urban village’ atmosphere of Millers and Dawes Points is largely attributable to the location and the actions of local residents (this is further explored in Chapter 4). While redevelopment has occurred in the area, it has mainly been restricted to building space that is residential.

In 2011, Millers and Dawes Points contained 1313 dwellings, including both houses and apartments (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011a; Australian Bureau of Statistics 2011b). In the 12 months leading up to January 2013, the average median prices for units sold in Millers and Dawes Points was A$1 371 000 (Australian Property Monitors 2012a; Australian Property Monitors 2012b). This price is significantly higher than the Sydney Local Governmental Area (LGA) unit price median average of A$585 000 (Australian Property Monitors 2012a; Australian Property Monitors 2012b). This price disparity is largely due to the inner city location of Millers and Dawes Points and its waterfront location, which has inflated real estate prices. While Millers and Dawes Points’ average median price of housing units is higher than Sydney’s LGA average, it does not reveal the socio-economic disparity for residents who live in the area. In addition to private housing, social housing properties that are occupied by a lower socio-economic demographic also exist in the area. Social housing properties exist in the area because they are remnants of the housing provided by the government during Sydney’s maritime period (c. 1820 to 1950). These social housing properties are concentrated on Kent Street, Lower Fort Street, Windmill Street, Merriman Street, Argyle Place, Trinity Avenue and Bettington Street (see Figure 1.2 for a street map of Millers and Dawes Points).

Figure 1.2 has been removed due to Copyright restrictions

3 The new international division of labour describes the process of capital being withdrawn from industrial based activities in inner cities because they are relocated to less economically developed countries to reduce production costs (Williams and Smith 1986). 4

Figure 1.2: Streets within Millers and Dawes Points. Source: (Whereis 2011)

Because of the significant disparity between the socio-economic demographics within the area (this disparity is further discussed in Chapters 4 and 5), Millers and Dawes Points’ residents are categorised into two main groups in this thesis: the traditional and new communities. The label ‘traditional community’, describes residents who reside in social housing in Millers and Dawes Points. Many of these residents either worked on the wharves during Sydney’s maritime period (c. 1820 to 1950) or have ancestral lineages extending back to these individuals who were integral to the maritime era. I have labelled the individuals who reside in newly built housing or apartments, which are not government owned, as members of the ‘new community’. Residents of the new community have characteristics representative of gentrifiers because their socio-economic position is situated well above the traditional community (cf. Bridge 2001). Chapter 4, Section 4.7.1 provides a more detailed analysis of the traditional and new communities.

Adjacent to Millers and Dawes Points lies an undeveloped 22-hectare portion of space known as ‘Barangaroo’ (see Figure 1.3). During Sydney’s maritime period, Barangaroo contained wharves that were used to load and offload goods (Fitzgerald and Keating 2009). Later, it was transformed into a concrete slab and became a container terminal (a more detailed analysis of Barangaroo’s past is included in Chapters 4 and 7). Today, the precinct has been earmarked for redevelopment due to the NSW state government’s aim of converting the area into a financial hub of the Asia-Pacific region (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2011).

Figure 1.3 has been removed due to Copyright restrictions

Figure 1.3: Location of the 22-hectare ‘Barangaroo’ development within Millers and Dawes Points highlighted in yellow. Source: (Google Earth 7.0 2013a)

1.2 Sydney’s (social) housing stress ‘Social housing’ generally refers to housing that is provided and managed by government authorities (Harriott, Matthews and Grainger 1998) to accommodate some of the most marginalised members of society (Forrest and Murie 1988). Aside from low incomes, alternative reasons that may lead to the need for social housing include individuals who require accommodation to suit their special needs; such as people with disabilities, older people and/or people with mental health issues (Harriott et al. 1998). With social housing

5 playing such a crucial role in society, the Australian government has invested A$1.9 million to produce over 6300 homes in NSW by June 2012 (Housing NSW 2010c). However, this figure is nearly 25 percent less than the previous year’s funding for social housing (Council of Social Service of New South Wales 2011). In addition, A$130 million has also been allocated for the maintenance of an existing 31 000 social housing homes in NSW (Housing NSW 2010c). Despite this funding, over 55 000 applicants who fulfil social housing eligibility criteria are on a waiting list in NSW alone4 (Audit Office of New South Wales 2013). This figure represents around 120 000 individuals who are unable to access the private housing market and are waiting for affordable housing (Audit Office of New South Wales 2013). In 2012, there were nearly 13 000 applicants on a waiting list for affordable housing in inner Sydney and this number is expected to increase over the next decade (Audit Office of New South Wales 2013).

Beyond government funding and policies Australia wide, other factors that have contributed to the limited availability of social and private housing include a strong population increase in Sydney’s metropolitan area (Housing NSW 2010d), which has been partly driven by the locational preferences of higher income earners (Berry 2003). Additionally, with this population increase, pressures on infrastructure and other support services have escalated. A senior analyst from RP Data5, Cameron Kusher (2012), claimed that Sydney has a ‘mature’ housing market, which has resulted in inflated real estate prices. Kusher (2012) has also stated that the Sydney metro region is geographically limited by national parks and other waterways. These geographical obstructions have curbed urban expansion in Sydney and has therefore, limited available land supply (Kusher 2012).

In 2011, Sydney’s housing market ranked as the second most unaffordable internationally (Demographia 2011). In 2013, Sydney recorded the highest housing price growth (compared to other Australian cities) with prices increasing by 13 percent (Wilson 2014). Sydney’s housing prices are also predicted to steadily increase over the next few years (Wilson 2014). Sydney’s unaffordable housing market has also influenced the rental sector, with only one rental property being available for every 15 low income households6 (Wulff, Reynolds,

4 New South Wales has a total of 115 585 tenantable social housing dwellings (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2011). 5 RP Data is a ‘provider of property information to the Australian real estate industry’ (RP Data 2013). 6 Households that receive between 50 percent and 80 percent of NSW’ or Sydney’s medium income (A$64 116 and A$75 088 per year respectively) are defined as low income earners (Housing NSW 2013b). 6

Arunachalam, Hulse and Yates 2011). Compounding the challenges in the unaffordable rental market is the overall decline in the number of available rental properties and higher income earners outbidding lower rent properties (Wulff et al. 2011). Consequently, less than five percent of available rental accommodation was affordable for ‘very-low’ income households7 and 18.6 percent for ‘low’ income households (NSW Government 2010b). By 2011, 17.8 percent of inner Sydney’s renting households were experiencing rental stress (Atlas.id 2014).

For those who are unable to afford rental accommodation in the private market, social housing is often the only viable alternative. However, in many cases social housing is simply not an available option due to limited or diminishing supply and as a result, large waiting lists for social housing exist (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2011).

1.2.1 Social housing stress in Millers and Dawes Points The government-supplied housing provided to the workers of Millers and Dawes Points during Sydney’s maritime period (c. 1820 to 1950) has been converted and now used as social housing. Today, the state social housing provider, Housing NSW, manages the tenancies for this housing8. In addition, a proportion of previously owned Housing NSW properties have been transferred to a ‘community housing’ provider – a smaller, not-for-profit organisation subsidised by the government. Community Housing is responsible for managing and providing affordable properties for low-income households9 (Housing NSW 2011b). Both social and community housing use the same waiting list for eligible recipients requiring social housing10 (Housing NSW 2013a).

The social housing properties in Millers and Dawes Points are some of the oldest (post-) colonial residential properties in Sydney, dating back to the early 1800s (Fitzgerald and Keating 2009). Given their age and historical significance, the properties currently fall under four main heritage listings (this is further discussed in Chapter 6, Section 6.2.3.4). The

7 Households that receive less than 50 percent of NSW’ or Sydney’s medium income (A$64 116 and A$75 088 per year respectively) are defined as very-low income earners (Housing NSW 2013b). 8 A detailed account of how Millers and Dawes Points’ social housing properties were managed in the past is included in Chapter 3. 9 Eligibility criteria for residing in community housing is the same as Housing NSW’ eligibility criteria. The seven community housing providers that manage social housing in Sydney’s inner city include: Bridge Housing, Common Equity, Ecclesia Housing, Metro Community Housing Co-operative, Mission Australia Housing (NSW), St George Community Housing and Women’s Housing Company. 10 This waiting list for social housing is known as the ‘NSW Housing Register’ (Housing NSW 2013a). 7 maintenance and upkeep of heritage properties require long-term management efforts that adhere to strict heritage guidelines. However, the properties have been managed by several different authorities, which has led to difficulties in establishing and controlling long-term maintenance. Such management difficulties have resulted in many of the properties falling into a state of disrepair, rendering some of them uninhabitable (Elliott 2007). Efforts to try and restore these properties to heritage standards would require millions of (Australian) dollars that Housing NSW has claimed not to possess within its budget (Norrie and Pearlman 2006).

To address the difficulties that managing and preserving these heritage properties present, Housing NSW has chosen the most dilapidated social housing properties in Millers and Dawes Points and sold them to the private real estate market in the form of a 99-year lease (Norrie and Pearlman 2006). These 99-year leases are known within the local Millers and Dawes Points’ communities as the ‘sell offs’.

As early as 1989, reports surfaced stating that residents of the traditional community were concerned for the future of their residential precinct (this is further discussed in Chapter 4, Section 4.6.1) (Bita 1989). However, the issue became of major concern when listings for residential properties appeared on the private market in 2004 (Goodsir 2004). Residents of the traditional community were aware that their residential longevity in this inner city location was dependent on the fate of their social housing properties. Residents were also mindful that given Sydney’s increasingly restrictive property market, the sales of social housing would be likely to continue (Goodsir 2004).

1.2.2 A synopsis of Millers and Dawes Points and thesis narrative The government’s decision to offer a selection of social housing properties to the private real estate market on 99-year leases has been contentious. The removal of social housing properties would eradicate some of the last affordable housing properties in this part of Sydney’s inner city. In addition, the connections residents of the traditional community have to Millers and Dawes Points could not be easily maintained if local housing was not available to them. As a result, the future of this ‘urban village’ is at risk. The traditional community’s future within this urban space is also subject to other pressures such as the ‘Barangaroo’ redevelopment. This re-imaging of a formerly redundant inner city space will be far removed from the residential ‘urban village’ character of Millers and Dawes Points. This 8 redevelopment has the potential to affect both the traditional and new communities of Millers and Dawes Points in various ways.

It is clear that Millers and Dawes Points’ geography has made the suburbs a highly contested space. While contests over this part of Sydney’s inner city have been ongoing, these battles over urban space are now more urgent because several stakeholder groups have recently sought to capitalise from Millers and Dawes Points. The weight of collective pressures from these stakeholders has made tensions across the precinct reach fever pitch as the future of this ‘urban village’ is at risk. This thesis explores these contestations and has sought to understand why different groups have taken an interest in this urban space. I have explored the motivations of the government, the residents of the new community and private corporations, who have all sought to modify the landscape in accordance with their own visions of the area. While examining these processes, I analysed the affects that these groups have had on the local area and, in particular, the impacts their actions have had on members of the traditional community. I have contextualised these examinations of Millers and Dawes Points’ contested spaces within the theoretical contexts of ‘senses of place’ and ‘territoriality’. These theories are further explored in the following section.

1.3 Theoretical framework: ‘Sense of place’ and ‘territoriality’ in Millers and Dawes Points Millers and Dawes Points have been subject to series of influences, such as gentrification and other global neoliberal forces that were responsible for creating the urban landscape visible today. Although important to the story of Millers and Dawes Points, gentrification and neoliberal paradigms are not the focus of this thesis. These theories have been described by the literature as too broad and ‘abstract’ (van Gent 2013, 504). Thus, contextualised ‘middle range frameworks’ need to be developed to adequately explain the changes occurring in local areas (Thelen 2002; van Gent 2013). The framework offered in this thesis uses the concepts of ‘territoriality’, ‘sense of place’ and ‘placelessness’. According to Delaney (2009, 196) ‘territoriality’ refers ‘to the behaviors related to the establishment and defense of territories’. For Shamai (1991, 354) a ‘sense of place’ refers to ‘[The] feelings, attitudes, and behaviour towards a place which varies from person to person, and from one scale to another’. Relph (1976, 143) has defined ‘placelessness’ as:

An environment without significant places and the underlying attitude which does not acknowledge significance in places. It reaches back into the deepest levels of place, cutting roots, eroding symbols, replacing diversity with uniformity and experiential order with conceptual order.

A comprehensive literature review that conceptualises these ideas in relation to the processes occurring in Millers and Dawes Points is provided in Chapter 2. Due to the changes currently occurring in the area (as discussed in Section 1.2), the suburbs have provided a unique field for unpacking how aspects of territoriality have been operationalised by residents’ articulations of senses of place. I have drawn on these theories to understand the contests over Millers and Dawes Points’ space, which is discussed in the remainder of this section.

1.3.1 Senses of place in Millers and Dawes Points I have used the concept of a ‘sense of place’ to understand how the traditional and new communities of Millers and Dawes Points have constructed their attachments to this inner city space. I have explored how the senses of place have been developed over time by unpacking themes and experiences unique to the traditional community using surveys and in- depth interview data. The connections members of the traditional community have to Millers and Dawes Points have been significant enough for them to construct boundaries that determine who may be accepted as part of their community. These boundaries have set the foundations for how members of the traditional and new communities have interacted socially with each other.

I also use the notion of a ‘sense of place’ to explain how members of the new community are developing attachments to Millers and Dawes Points. Although residents of the traditional and new communities are living within the same location, I examine how their senses of place have been discursively constructed. In particular, I demonstrate how residents of the new community have consumed themes central to the traditional community’s senses of place. By developing their own attachments to this inner city place, residents of the new community have begun to perceive themselves as more entitled to this urban space and thus, have marginalised social housing residents.

1.3.2 Acts of territorialisation and a sense of placelessness in Millers and Dawes Points Subsequent to having established and contextualised the current social and cultural environments of Millers and Dawes Points, the thesis narrative continues by exploring how these senses of place are being impinged on. I demonstrate that the government, residents of the new community as well as other private corporations have used ‘territorialisation techniques’ in Millers and Dawes Points. How these groups have demonstrated territorialisation techniques are examined by drawing on Sack’s (1986, 21) three ‘interdependent relationships of territoriality11’. I have sought to uncover the extent to which various interest groups have ‘classifi[ed]’, ‘communicat[ed]’ and ‘enforce[d]’ their vision of Millers and Dawes Points in relation to Sack’s (1986, 28) theory of territoriality. I examine the territorial strategies used to drive the sales of social housing and the construction of the ‘Barangaroo’ redevelopment. Utilising the theory of territoriality, this thesis concerns itself with how Millers and Dawes Points’ stakeholder groups have sought to control the local landscape.

This thesis presents analyses as to how the mounting pressures over space have begun to impact the local communities in Millers and Dawes Points, particularly, residents of the traditional community. I demonstrate that the strategies of territoriality enacted by the government, residents of the new community and other private corporations have begun to disrupt the links used by residents of the traditional community to connect with the urban space that they perceived themselves to be more entitled to. As a result, this thesis is concerned with how the actions of these groups have successfully unsettled the traditional community’s senses of place, and to a certain extent, the new community’s senses of place as well. I show that the changes occurring in Millers and Dawes Points have caused residents of the traditional community to feel increasingly ‘placeless’ in Millers and Dawes Points (a definition of ‘placelessness’ is included in Chapter 2, Section 2.6). Because residents of the traditional and new communities were personally affected by these territorial actions, this thesis has also documented how residents of the traditional and new communities have mobilised to resist the changes occurring in their suburbs. In the following section, I discuss the aims for this thesis and explain how my chapters are organised to address these aims.

11 A definition and detailed discussion of this concept is included in Chapter 2, Section 2.5. 11

1.4 Aims, objectives and thesis outline This thesis consists of eight chapters. Chapters 4 to 7 engage with the issues defined in my aims. The first aim of this thesis was to:

Aim 1: To create a social history of Millers and Dawes Points with emphasis on the struggles and resistance in place over time.

To achieve this aim, Chapter 4 examines the past to provide a contextualised social history of Millers and Dawes Points that has not been conducted. In Chapter 4, I trace how Millers and Dawes Points’ long history has produced the multi-layered landscape visible today. Beginning with Aboriginal occupation, I examine how Millers and Dawes Points remained predominately residential within the globalising city of Sydney. I document Millers and Dawes Points’ transition from an industrial town to a post-industrial inner city location. I explain that various stakeholder groups who had competing interests over this part of Sydney’s inner city have brought about this change. I reveal that these struggles were instrumental in forming the ‘urban village’ character that still exists to this day. I also document how the traditional and new communities have come to live cheek by jowl in this inner city space. These two communities are vital to understanding the demands over urban space. These demands were the focus for the following aim:

Aim 2: To provide a discursive analysis of how the traditional and new communities have constructed and maintained their senses of place over time and how these are affected by gentrification and territorial processes.

To achieve this aim I chart how residents of the traditional community have developed their attachments to place and how these attachments are maintained and protected. Although, residents of the traditional and new communities reside within the same location, I show that members of the new community are developing their connections to Millers and Dawes Points in very different ways. The ways members of the new community develop their senses of place also have the capacity to influence how residents of the traditional community perceive space around them. I demonstrate that the changes occurring in this place are fundamentally altering the ways members of the traditional community have the opportunity to relate to their environment. This discussion of the two community’s senses of place is pivotal to understanding their attachments to place and how these attachments are being 12 impinged upon. Having established the current social and cultural environment of Millers and Dawes Points, I developed Aim 3 and its sub-aims 3.1 and 3.2, which were:

Aim 3: To identify how the government, members of the new community and commercial corporations have acted territorially in their efforts to re-image, promote and enforce their new visions for Millers and Dawes Points (including Barangaroo).

Sub-Aim 3.1: To examine how these territorial acts have affected the senses of place identified in Aim 2 and facilitated an increasing sense of placelessness for members of the traditional community. And,

Sub-Aim 3.2: To demonstrate how the traditional community, and to a certain extent the new community, have resisted these territorial actions.

To address these aims, I shift my discussion in Chapter 6 to focus on the battles occurring over Millers and Dawes Points’ space. I demonstrate the state government’s commitment to managing Millers and Dawes Points in a way that ensures that its vision for the area is executed. I reveal how the government has enacted acts of territorialisation in ways that resemble Sack’s (1986) three interdependent relationships of territoriality. I concentrate on how the government has re-imaged Millers and Dawes Points and how it has communicated this re-imaging. I conclude by discussing the ways the government has enforced its vision for the area using territorial methods.

I also explore how the new community’s vision for Millers and Dawes Points has aligned with the government’s vision. I reveal how members of the new community have enacted their own unique way of territorialising, which also resembles Sack’s (1986) three interdependent relationships of territoriality. Along with the government, I show how members of the new community have also re-imaged, promoted and enforced their visions for Millers and Dawes Points. I have also explored how these territorial actions have destabilised the traditional community’s senses of place. Because of these threats to their senses of place and territory that they perceive as their own, I document the ways residents of the traditional community have opposed the territorial actions enacted by the government and new community.

Following Chapter 6, Chapter 7 analyses the latest round of contests over Millers and Dawes Points’ terrain. This new set of struggles is occurring over the precinct known as ‘Barangaroo’, which is ongoing at the time of writing. Being a sought over location, many groups have indicated their interest over this part of inner Sydney. As with Millers and Dawes Points, the government has once again wrestled for control over the precinct to enact their visions for the area. While private corporations played a role in territorialising the residential and commercial areas of Millers and Dawes Points, their role in transforming Barangaroo (South) into a financial hub was far more pronounced. The strategies the government and other private corporations used to manage Barangaroo are also analysed with reference to Sack’s (1986) three interdependent relationships of territoriality. I show how these territorial actions have resulted in a growing sense of placelessness for residents of the traditional community. In addition, I describe how Millers and Dawes Points’ residents have opposed these territorial actions.

Chapter 8, the concluding chapter, draws together the key findings of this research. I state that the needs and values of local residents are at odds with other stakeholders who wish to develop Sydney’s position as a global city. Thus, the various battles occurring over Millers and Dawes Points have reached a critical threshold. The changes transforming the area will have irreversible consequences for Sydney’s ‘urban village’. A postscript of the events that occurred outside of the analysis period of thesis follows the conclusion.

In this introductory chapter, I have described how this thesis contributed to gentrification research by using a case study of Millers and Dawes Points. By using the concept of a ‘sense of place’, clearer understandings of the ways residents develop attachments to this space have been realised. This thesis also uses ‘territoriality’ theory to build a picture of how various stakeholders have gradually claimed increasing levels of control over this inner city space. I have explained that these claims to urban space have developed from the precinct’s cultural and economic value, which has made the area a highly contested space. I concluded this chapter with the aims of this thesis and how this thesis is presented to address these aims.

Chapter 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction This chapter provides a theoretical backdrop to the concepts raised in this thesis. Part 1 of this chapter begins with a review of existing gentrification literature relevant to Millers and Dawes Points including the ‘consumption’ and ‘production’ factors that drive gentrification. It also sets out how ‘consumption’ factors lead to the creation of gentrifier identities. Part 2 then identifies theories of neoliberalism, which have been described as too broad and ‘abstract’ to adequately explain the process of gentrification (van Gent 2013, 504). Therefore, middle range frameworks need to be developed to provide a better understanding of the changes occurring in local areas (Thelen 2002; van Gent 2013). The concepts of ‘territoriality’, ‘sense of place’ and ‘placelessness’ are then considered and have provided an overall theoretical framework for this thesis. These concepts are essential in enhancing our understandings of the processes occurring in Millers and Dawes Points. This chapter concludes with an explanation of the utility and efficacy of these concepts, which are gaining prevalence in current geographic literatures.

Part 1 2.2 Conceptualising gentrification The arrival of ‘gentrifiers’ into areas was originally termed ‘gentrification’ by Glass (1964). Educated young professionals, with good incomes working in professional services have been described as ‘gentrifiers’ (Ley 1996). Since Glass’ (1964) definition, gentrification theory has broadened to address the further influences of economic and socio-cultural factors. The categorisation of these influences as either ‘consumption’ or ‘production’ arguments has been extensively explored in the literature (see for example Lees 1994b; Lees 1996; Ley 1986; Mills 1988; Smith 1979; Zukin 1982a). This conceptual overview of gentrification literature reviews these competing ‘production’ and ‘consumption’ led arguments but more recent thinking suggests that these are more correct when combined (Ley 1987; Hamnett 1991).

2.2.1 Consumption factors of gentrification The role of people and their culture (and how this affects the environment) is the focus of consumption based arguments (Mills 1993). This section considers the consumption behaviours of first and second stage gentrifiers, and their role in gentrification processes (Ley 1987).

‘First stage’ gentrifiers as coined by Smith (1979) start the gentrification process by seeking affordable housing in the inner city. In pursuit of serving their own needs they bring services and visually appealing changes (Ley 1981) by converting the city from an industrial location to a post-industrial one. First stage gentrifiers are then priced out of the residential market of the post-industrialised environment by a ‘second stage’ of more affluent gentrifiers that are attracted to the new conveniences and improved appearance of these areas (Smith 1987a). These second stage gentrifiers are referred to by Ley (1980; 1994; 1996) as the ‘new middle classes’. These features of ‘the new middle class’ are also evident in residents of the new community in Millers and Dawes Points (a description of this community and their characteristics is provided in Chapter 4, Section 4.7.1).

The new middle class bring higher amounts of education, which Ley (2003, 2536) suggested is linked to the ‘acquisition of “good taste” and in turn the demand for upmarket services which they can ‘consume’ with their higher disposable incomes. This ‘good taste’ consumption is suggested by Mills (1993, 154) as a more ‘specialised and discriminating’ form of consumption. Ley (1980; 1986) suggested that the new middle classes’ are driven by their need for status, thus they consume to attain personal satisfaction. Millers and Dawes Points’ members of the new community (i.e. the ‘new middle class’) have also displayed this unique form of consumption (Mills 1993) (this is further discussed in Chapter 5, Section 5.3.2). The following sections explore this consumption behaviour and the explanations the literatures provide for these habits.

2.2.2 Constructing gentrifier identities through consumption As discussed in the previous section (2.2.1), gentrifiers who participate in inner city living play a large role in the consumption of gentrification. Goss (2004, 373) identified that ‘individual and social identity is fashioned through consumption’. Mills (1988,) identified that marketing strategies and architecture largely influence the ways gentrifiers consume the landscape. Mills (1993, 152) has described this type of advertising as ‘myth making’ because 16 stories are created which place value on commodities to appeal to the desires of gentrifiers. Gentrifiers consume these ‘myths’ to shape their identities (Harvey 1989a). This process has also been apparent in Millers and Dawes Points where its heritage and architecture have appealed to residents of the new community because of its rich architectural heritage.

Heritage in the post-industrial landscape involves retaining and highlighting features of the environment that show its previous industrial use (Featherstone 1993). First stage gentrifiers initially renovate old housing to improve its aesthetic appearance (Shaw 2005). The resulting heritage features encourage second stage gentrifiers to view the symbolic value of the properties (Jager 1986).

The improved aesthetic appearance of heritage features is typically coupled with advertising campaigns that ‘romanticise’ the industrial past (Crilley 1993). Romanticising the past occurs by focusing on original industrial use (Shaw 2005) which helps to develop a connection between the gentrifier and the history related with the heritage architecture (Crilley 1993). Mills (1993) explained that lifestyle advertisements reinforce a gentrifier’s self-identity because they convince gentrifiers that by consuming the product, they will attain an upmarket lifestyle. This process is apparent in Millers and Dawes Points where its heritage and architecture have appealed to residents of the new community. However, this consumption has been critiqued as misguided by other members of the community (this is further discussed in Chapter 5, Section 5.3.2).

2.2.3 Production theories of gentrification forming the post-industrial city In contrast to consumption-based theories of gentrification, this section analyses how production arguments focus on the role of capital and institutions in forming the post- industrial city including locations such as Millers and Dawes Points (Smith and Williams 1986). It begins with a discussion on how global economic processes have played a role in forming de-industrialised landscapes. I show that these de-industrialised landscapes provide the conditions for Smith’s (1979) rent gap to be enacted. Also explored is how governments and other institutions have contributed to the production of gentrification.

Changes in international economic systems are seen to be the cause of gentrification for production based arguments (Williams 1986). That is, central city areas are restructured because their economies are no longer centred around industrial activities (Williams and 17

Smith 1986). Williams and Smith (1986) described this process as the new international division of labour where industrial businesses depart the inner city. As a result of these changes, the inner city no longer has a labour focussed employment base (Beauregard 1986)

When industrial based activities relocate, the visual effects gentrification can be observed (Watson 1991). Underutilised and deteriorated former industrial sites draw in capital, which transforms the city into a post-industrial area (Smith 1982). Smith (1979; 1982; 1986; 1987a) documented this transformation by raising the ‘rent gap’ theory. The theory describes the profit that could be earned if economic investment was put towards underutilised land (Smith 1979). Thus, we see the production of gentrification when ‘powerful actors’ invest in former industrial areas, which transforms cities (Holocomb and Beauregard 1981, 69). These powerful actors can include governments that invest in inner city locations to gain future profits, thus initiating the gentrification process (Williams and Smith 1986). Investment by governments in former industrial sites is typical of the Barangaroo development in Millers and Dawes Points (this is further discussed in Chapter 7, Section 7.3.1). Property developers also play a role in gentrification, which is particularly obvious in the apartment developments built in Millers and Dawes Points such as ‘Pier 6/7’ and ‘The Shore’ (this is further discussed in Chapter 4, Section 4.7).

2.2.4 Combining consumption and production theories of gentrification Both production and consumption arguments have received criticism in the literature (see for example Smith 1979; Smith 1982; Rose 1984; Ley 1987; Hamnett 2003b). Engels (1999, 1493) described the intellectual deadlock in the dualism of gentrification debates as a ‘conceptual impasse’. The next theoretical advancement in gentrification literature highlighted that the cause of gentrification needed to be conceptualised beyond production and consumption debates. In particular, Hamnett (1991) and Ley (1987) advocated that gentrification is best explained by synchronising both production and consumption theories. Smith (1987a, 464) too acknowledged the importance of merging both theories and early attempts were made by Zukin (1982b), Lees (1994b) and Van Weesep (1994) who believed that synchronising both arguments were essential to more comprehensive arguments of gentrification. The merging of production and consumption theories is also identified by Engels (1999) who also recognised that gentrification debates needed to move past production and consumption debates to show how both theories explain gentrification.

Part 1 of this chapter has provided a conceptual overview of the gentrification literature relevant to Millers and Dawes Points’ gentrification experiences. Part 2 provides an overview of how gentrification is part of wider ‘neoliberal’ forms of capitalism. It also identifies weaknesses inherent in neoliberal arguments that reveal a conceptual gap in the literature.

Part 2 2.3 Gentrification, neoliberalism and middle range theories Part 2 of this chapter examines the theory of neoliberalism and its role in the gentrification process. I consider the literatures on neoliberalism, and their critiques that identify a set of overgeneralisations, which cannot explain the local geographies of gentrification. Researchers have called for middle range theories and frameworks to be developed. In this section, I offer a framework that incorporates middle range theories, which include ‘territoriality’, ‘sense of place’ and ‘placelessness’. This framework assists in our understandings of the changes occurring in Millers and Dawes Points partly caused by gentrification. Because these theories have roots in humanist geographies, this chapter concludes with a description justifying their inclusion in this thesis.

2.3.1 Gentrification and neoliberalism Related to production arguments of gentrification are theories of neoliberalism. Smith (2002) was amongst the first gentrification authors to link theories of neoliberalism with processes of gentrification, globalisation and state governance. He argued that gentrification was closely connected with global economic markets (Smith 2002). It was around the late 1970s (Brenner and Theodore 2002) that a shift occurred from a Keynesian ‘welfarism’ state to a more political-economic form of governance (Harvey 2005). According to Harvey (2005, 3) neoliberalism has become ‘the common-sense way many of us interpret, live in, and understand the world’. This thesis defines neoliberalism as:

A theory of political economic practices that proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade (Harvey 2005, 2).

Neoliberalism also facilitates globalisation by breaking down economic barriers and allowing greater freedoms in trade and investment (Murray 2009). In short, neoliberalism is an organisational framework that is led by market and individual choices in ‘contemporary political–economic formations’ (Larner 2009, 374). It is underpinned by the ideology that the market (via supply and demand relationships) is the best regulator of welfare provision, not the state (Gill 1995; Larner 2000). Advocates of neoliberalism argue that governments are incapable of effectively managing the ‘capitalist system’ (Murray 2009, 379). It is believed that welfare and other social provisions are best provided by market forces, which enable global competition and enhance supply (Brenner and Theodore 2002; Murray 2009). Within this system, the government is given a restricted role that is limited to generating a competitive market place, which promotes further neoliberal practices (Larner 2000; Harvey 2005).

Gill (1995, 419) has explained that this ‘logic of neoliberalism is contradictory’. Rather than create a fair and equitable distribution of resources, the neoliberal paradigm has instead ‘generate[d] [the] depletion of resources and environment, as well as undermining the traditional tax base and the capacity to provide public goods’ (Gill 1995, 419). As such, the neoliberal form of governance has had varied consequences (Brenner and Theodore 2002). The system benefits the ‘strong’ (including high earning or wealthy individuals) while further polarising those with little economic or political influence (Gill 1995, 401). State cut backs, privatisation, reduced welfare provision as well as economic and social insecurities are often documented in this style governance (Gill 1995; Harvey 2005).

Geographic literatures have noted that gentrification can be encouraged through neoliberal paradigms (Smith 2002; Davidson 2007). This process is driven by neoliberal ideologies, which affect the structure of public policies in the major cities of economically advanced countries (Marom and Carmon 2015) including Millers and Dawes Points in Sydney. Lees and Ley (2008, 2379) have described how the combination of gentrification and neoliberal paradigms ‘has had a longstanding and symbiotic relationship with public policy’. Once integrated into public policy, gentrification has been used as a tool to create more ‘desirable’ landscapes (Wyly and Hammel 2005, 36) as well as influence housing supply (Smith 2002; Davidson 2007; Marom and Carmon 2015).

In Millers and Dawes Points, public policy (that enables gentrification) has been assisted through state led gentrification. State led gentrification describes initiatives used by the state to encourage the gentrification process (Hackworth and Smith 2001; Lees 2003a; Lees 2003b). For example, the state may introduce public policy to tackle the perceived ‘overpopulation’ of a lower socio-economic demographic in some areas (Atkinson 2002; Seo 2002). These areas of ‘deprivation’ require correction in the form of ‘state led intervention’ and associated public policy (Baeten 2004; Porter and Barber 2006). This process has also occurred globally such as in London where the state has removed welfare systems that provide social housing (Lees 2014). The remainder of this section discusses how states encourage gentrification through social mix policies and new build developments, as has occurred in Millers and Dawes Points.

In public policy, the state avoids the term ‘gentrification’ in favour of more agreeable statements such as urban revitalisation and regeneration (Lees 2003b; Lees, Slater and Wyly 2008), which distract from the negative associations of gentrification (as discussed earlier in this section) (Porter and Barber 2006; Lees 2008). These policies are seen to remedy ‘social inequalities’ in certain areas (Davidson and Lees 2005, 1186) because it is assumed that gentrification based public policies will lead to more ‘liveable and sustainable communities’(Lees 2008, 2449). In practice, the state may introduce policies that encourage social mixing.

Social mixing in this thesis is defined as ‘as the composition of residents’ in an area and is usually considered in opposition to residential segregation where groups are physically separated (Christensen 2015). There has been a continuing presence of social mix policies instigated by the state in many countries such as Europe, America and Australia for over the last decade (Shaw and Hagemans 2015). In these states, social mixing can play a central role in policy strategies (Lees 2008).

In the case study of Millers and Dawes Points, politicians calling for greater social mix in the area have highlighted the alleged benefits it brings (this is further discussed in Chapter 5, Section 5.3.1.1). This tactic of appealing to the greater good is common in public policy circles and well documented in social mix literature. For example, Schoon (2001) has documented the top three arguments that are communicated in support of social mixing. First, it is believed that when a higher socio-economic demographic mix enters an area, they 21 will more effectively advocate for increased infrastructure (Schoon 2001). It is expected that increased resources will allow for improved performances in education and employment rates across the local population (Christensen 2015). This argument deflects criticism of lower socio-economic groups and focuses on the alleged benefits they will receive (Blomley 2004; Slater 2005; Slater 2006). Second, a greater proportion of middle classed households will lift the local economy of the area and third, they will also promote social cohesion and increase the vibrancy of the area (Schoon 2001). Other arguments in favour of gentrification based policy include that it will alleviate social problems (such as crime and poverty) and reduce neighbourhood stigmas (Christensen 2015).

Research has revealed how social mix policy in reality, disguises gentrification processes and assists in the removal of lower socio-economic demographic groups from newly valued spaces (Cameron 2003; Uitermark, Duyvendak and Kleinhans 2007). In addition, the marketed benefits of social mix (as discussed earlier in this section) have also been proven ineffective (Lees 2008). For example, Lees (2008) has noted that social mix policy has no effect on upward mobility. That is, it has not been proved that social mixing improves education levels or employment prospects (Arthurson 2004; Randolph and Wood 2004). Rather, it has the direct ability to increase segregation between differing income groups (Lees 2008) as well as cause inequality and polarisation (Bolt and Van Kempen 2011). In time, displacement may also be witnessed in place of the intended social mixing (Atkinson 2004; Walks and Maaranen 2008) (gentrification-induced displacement is explored in greater detail later in this section).

Shaw (2009, 199) stated that ‘neoliberal urban policies of social mix can be theorized as existing less for the benefit of low-income people than for their contributions to the local tax base and real-estate development in general’. Here, Shaw (2009) has described a form of new build gentrification where new residential and corporate developments are constructed on marginal or industrial land (Hackworth and Smith 2001). New build gentrification is a central feature in the urban revitalisation of Millers and Dawes Points. In particular, the Walsh Bay and Barangaroo developments are typical of this new build gentrification process (see Chapter 4, Section 4.7 and Chapter 7, Section 7.2.1 respectively for a discussion on new build developments). While new build gentrification is predominately state induced, other stakeholders include architects, gentrifiers, and developers (Porter and Barber 2006). Davidson (2007) described that new build gentrification is most commonly exhibited as 22 large-scale up market apartment developments, which are built for the consumption of the middle classes (Davidson 2007) (the consumption of gentrification is discussed Section 2.2.1 of this Chapter).

Similar to urban mix policies, new build gentrification is portrayed as a cure that transforms areas into socially inclusive, vibrant and attractive places to live in (Porter and Barber 2006). Increased economic capital is also expected as the middle class purchase these new properties (Davidson and Lees 2005). As with social mix policies, new build developments have been evidenced to cause displacement (Davidson and Lees 2005). For example, both Robson and Butler (2001) and Davidson (2010) found that new build gentrification along the River Thames did not result in social mixing. Rather, Davidson (2007, 533) viewed ‘disjunctured lifeworlds’ where traditional and new communities had limited social interactions.

2.3.2 Gentrification and middle range theories Given the various impacts caused by neoliberal ideology described in the previous Section (2.3.1), the theory of neoliberalism has been described as an ‘abstract explanation’ for a range of changes seen in local areas (van Gent 2013, 504). Smith (1996, 185-186) in reference to the processes of gentrification occurring in several European cities stated:

The existence of difference [i.e. differing experiences of gentrification in European cities] is a different matter from the denial of plausible generalization. I do not think that it makes sense to dissolve all these experiences into radically different empirical phenomena.

Smith (1996) in the same study quoted directly above, claimed that gentrification is a general process. He discounted Lees’ (1994a) study, which provided empirical evidence about the differences between gentrification in England and the United States (Smith 1996). Later, Smith (2002, 440) elaborated on this notion by asserting that ‘we might think of ... gentrification [as] generalized’ and as a ‘global urban strategy’ connected to the ‘circuits of global capital and cultural circulation’ (2002, 427). However, Lees et al. (2008) noted that Smith has had a varied view on the causal mechanisms of gentrification. For example, Smith (2002, 440) acknowledged that gentrification may also be a varied phenomenon: ‘gentrification has occurred in markedly different ways in different cities and neighbourhoods and according to different temporal rhythms’. 23

According to van Gent (2013, 504), Smith’s (2002) inconsistencies are ‘essentially a tension in theory construction, namely, between highly abstract, far-ranging theory and contextualized, middle-ranging theory’. van Gent (2013, 504-505) explained that Smith (2002) aimed to offer a theory that existed ‘at a higher level of abstraction, linking globalization, neoliberalization and gentrification’. For Thelen (2002, 95) the problem with these higher range and more abstract theories is that they ‘operate on the assumption that the general part of an explanation will capture a very big part of the story’. Any variances in these processes are irrelevant to these abstract theories (Thelen 2002; Streeck and Thelen 2005). To bridge the gap between theories of abstraction and local variations ‘causal mechanisms in social reality require a contextualized examination’ (van Gent 2013, 505). Thelen (2002, 95) described that these more contextualised examinations may be achieved by analysing phenomena through ‘middle range theory’.

‘Middle range theory’ (developed by Robert Merton in the 1950s) do not exist in opposition to abstract theories, but rather augment and develop our understandings of broader processes (Merton 1957; Thelen 2002). van Gent (2013) recognised that neoliberal theories of gentrification were unclear and required contextualisation. As such, van Gent (2013, 505) sought to ‘amend the abstract framework on gentrification’ by using a historical institutional perspective to ‘explain local variation’ in gentrifying Amsterdam. According to van Gent (2013, 505) historical institutionalism is ‘an approach to analyse institutional development over time’. This historical institutionalist approach is not a favourable framework for this case study of Millers and Dawes Points. While Millers and Dawes Points’ past has been influential in shaping its present, this thesis is more concerned about the changes that are occurring in this current time and space.

In response to van Gent’s (2013, 519) plea to develop ‘middle-range theories and analytical frameworks which help to understand and explain different geographies of gentrification’, this thesis amends the abstract framework of gentrification by making use of other geographical theories to explain local variation. To help understand the differing geographies of gentrification (Lees 2000), this thesis uses ‘territoriality’ theory to partly explain the processes underpinning the changes occurring in Millers and Dawes Points (a full definition and justification of this theory is provided in Section 2.5). As these processes are too complex to be examined using a single theory, ‘territoriality’ theory is expanded by other

24 concepts including ‘sense of place’ and ‘placelessness’ for this thesis (a full definition and justification of these theories is provided in Sections 2.4 and 2.6 respectively).

The remainder of this chapter contains a review of the gentrification-induced displacement literature, which informs discussions about ‘sense(s) of place’. These conceptual analyses lay the foundations for discussions concerning theories of ‘territorialisation’ and ‘placelessness’, also covered in this chapter.

2.4 Gentrification induced displacement and sense(s) of place Much of the gentrification literature is devoted to examining how the process affects people. Gentrification induced displacement is one such area that many authors consider inherent in the gentrification process (see for example Glass 1964; Bailey and Robertson 1997; Atkinson 2000b). Many authors claim that individuals from a lower socio-economic demographic are steadily priced out of gentrifying areas (see for example LeGates and Hartman 1986; Marcuse 1986; Smith 1996; Wyly and Hammel 2004). Marcuse (1985, 198-199) defined ‘displacement’ as the process where gentrifiers:

… replace older residents-who disproportionately are low-income, working- class and poor, minority and ethnic group members, and elderly-from older and previously deteriorated inner-city housing in a spatially concentrated manner, that is, to a degree differing substantially from the general level of change in the community or region as a whole.

Marcuse (1986) described four main factors by which lower socio-economic populations could be affected by gentrification induced displacement: 1. Direct displacement: occurs when economical or physical displacement removes residents from their homes. 2. Chain displacement: rent increases and/or building upgrades force residents to relocate. 3. Exclusionary displacement: individuals from a lower socio-economic demographic are prevented from moving into a gentrified area. 4. Displacement pressure: the eviction fears individuals experience from the gentrification process.

Given the difficulties of locating displaced populations (Hamnett and Williams 1979; Atkinson 2000a; Lees et al. 2008), much of the gentrified related displacement research was based on quantitative data in the 1980s (see for example Grier and Grier 1980; LeGates and Hartman 1981; LeGates and Hartman 1986; Marcuse 1986). In the 1990s, less research into displaced populations was conducted (Lees et al. 2008). By the following decade, ‘displacement’ studies were again gaining momentum. For example, Hamnett (2003a, 2424) in his study on the gentrification of Inner London claimed that ‘the occupational class structure of London has been associated with the gradual replacement of one class by another, rather than large-scale direct displacement’. Hamnett (2003a) described that London’s workforce had been professionalised rather than displaced. Other influential studies published around the same time (for example 2002; 2004) also questioned whether or not gentrification was responsible for the displacement of local populations. In response to this work, Newman and Wyly (2006) estimated that rates of displacement were substantially higher than the figures provided by Freeman and Braconi (2002). Newman and Wyly (2006) also cited that rent increases (as a result of gentrification) was the main factor causing displacement amongst lower socio-economic demographic populations in New York City. Smith and Williams (1986) have explained that these displaced individuals often lack the economic or political power to resist the changes occurring in their local areas. This lack of power is also apparent amongst Millers and Dawes Points’ social housing population (or residents of the traditional community) who have also experienced difficulties resisting local gentrification pressures (this is further explored in Chapter 6, Section 6.4).

While the displacement of lower socio-economic groups can be a negative outcome of gentrification, other studies have noted that these minority groups may benefit from the gentrification process (Bridge 1994; Freeman 2006; Newman and Wyly 2006). For example, local homeowners may benefit from increased property prices and gain revenue if they sell (Newman and Wyly 2006). However, Atkinson’s (2004, 107) review of English language gentrification studies found that it was mostly a ‘harmful’ process. Negative impacts may include displacement, community demarcation, homelessness and an increasing gap between the rich and the poor (Atkinson 2002; Hammel 2009).

Some individuals from lower socio-economic groups avoid displacement pressures. For example, Freeman and Braconi (2004) described how social housing residents are able to resist eviction because their rent payments remain relatively stable and are below market 26 levels. This has been the case in Millers and Dawes Points where there still exists a large social housing population despite the city gentrifying around them (further detail explaining how social housing has remained in the district is provided in Chapter 4). However, this ‘protection’ does not mean these social housing residents remain unaffected by gentrification. Marcuse’s (1986) fourth factor of displacement: ‘displacement pressure’ (as described in the beginning of this Section 2.4), highlighted how the fear of being relocated is also significant. Atkinson (2000a) briefly explored this fear and explained that local residents may become concerned when they witness their neighbours or other members of their community departing the area. This fear is also prevalent amongst members of the traditional community in Millers and Dawes Points and is further explored in Chapter 6.

As described in Chapter 1, there is a population of social housing residents in Millers and Dawes Points who have not been priced out of the rapidly gentrifying area. According to Doucet (2009, 300), these residents who remain in gentrifying areas are ‘largely overlooked’ in gentrification research’. Agreeing with Doucet (2009), Brown-Saracino (2009, 19) argued that most gentrification research is focussed on outcomes (such as displacement) rather than the full complexity of the ‘process’. Doucet (2009, 300) elaborated:

[Lower socio economic populations in gentrifying areas] often get ignored in debates that divide the [gentrification] process into ‘winners’ and ‘losers’. The experiences, expectations, perceptions and anxieties of these groups have yet to be fully developed in the voluminous literature on gentrification.

This thesis contributes to the relatively small body of literature detailing the experiences of lower socio economic groups living in gentrifying areas. In line with using middle range theories to explain local variations (as described in Section 2.3.1), this thesis uses the concept of a ‘sense of place’ to understand the ‘viewpoints of ordinary residents ... [to identify] how gentrification can impact local groups’ (Doucet 2009, 300). This thesis augments existing discussions of territorialisation by providing a more comprehensive analysis of the gentrification process in Millers and Dawes Points through an understanding of the residents’ senses of place.

2.4.1 Conceptualising sense(s) of place in Millers and Dawes Points This section provides a review of the literature dealing with sense(s) of place. It begins by addressing questions about space and place and how these concepts inform our understandings of a ‘sense of place’. Also discussed is how individuals develop attachments with each other to form communities, which are central to the discussion of this thesis.

Crang and Thrift (2000, 1) have described ‘space is the everywhere of modern thought’. It was theorised early on that ‘space’ was central to geographic studies (James and Jones 1954) and it is still a ‘central organizing concept within geography’ today (Valentine 2001, 2; Agnew 2011). Authors who approached space within a positivist paradigm focussed on spatial laws to understand the world around them (see for example Schaefer 1953; Hartshorne 1958). Space was viewed as an objective container where spatial relations were ‘fixed and mutually exclusive’ (Valentine 2001, 3).

During the 1970s, understandings of space took a key turn with the emergence of humanistic geography (Castree 2003). In an effort to liberate themselves from the conceptual limitations of positivist approaches to geography, humanistic geographers focussed on the individual experiences people have within spaces (Cloke, Philo and Sadler 1991). Space was found to be subjective and a product of the socio-spatial interactions between individuals (Portugali 2006). Today, ‘space’ is understood to be a more ‘abstract concept’ than place (Cresswell 2004, 8). Thrift (2003, 95) has provided a more contemporary definition of space:

[Space is] the outcome of a series of highly problematic settlements that divide and connect things up into different kinds of collectives which are slowly provided with the means which render them durable and sustainable.

Central to these new humanistic approaches to space were new discussions about place. ‘Place’ is a broad and complex term that encompasses several meanings and crosses many scales (Harvey 1993; Cresswell 2004). According to Cresswell (1999, 226), ‘place eludes easy definition’. The writings of Tuan (1977) and Relph (1976) formed a basis for more human understandings of places and were instrumental in developing the notion that places may be understood through the attachments individuals develop within them. For Sack (1977), places are the result of the constant interweaving of the worlds of nature, society and the values individuals attach to these interactions. The way an individual interacts with their 28 environment enables understandings of place to be moulded by subjective emotional responses (Hubbard 2005). This thesis has drawn on Cresswell’s (2004) work to understand the distinction between ‘place’ and ‘space’. Cresswell (2004, 10) described that space is a ‘realm without meaning’ and that it may become a place when individuals inscribe meaning into that portion of that space and develop ties towards it. ‘Place’ is a result of human interaction and experience where individuals ‘stop, rest and become involved’ (Cresswell 2004, 20). In contrast, ‘space’ refers to an ‘open area of action’ (Cresswell 2004, 20). Place denotes both the physical environment as well as social interactions between people (Stedman 2003). This thesis is concerned with how people and places are inseparable as all people are connected to place in some way (Relph 1976). Shmuel (1991, 355) has noted that the connection between individuals and place is reciprocal, ‘the person gives the place its meaning, but in return receives the place’s meaning’.

Agnew (1987, 28) used three main factors to describe ‘place’: ‘location’, ‘locale’, and ‘sense of place’. In this thesis, the location is Millers and Dawes Points, which will be read as a ‘social construct’ in order to understand the community dynamics in the area (Harvey 1993, 25). The ‘locale’ comprises of the social interactions between Millers and Dawes Points’ residents. ‘Sense of place’ refers to the deep personal association some individuals have with Millers and Dawes Points, as a ‘place’. Places are powerful entities that are able to invoke certain emotional responses within individuals. Through the connections individuals experience towards places, a ‘sense of place’ is shaped.

‘Sense of place’ has been a contested term used inconsistently throughout academic literature (Semken and Freeman 2008; Kudryavtsev, Stedman and Krasny 2012; Soini, Vaarala and Pouta 2012). For example, terms such as ‘rootedness’, ‘place affiliation’ and ‘place bonding’ have been used by scholars interchangeably without much contextual detail (Kudryavtsev et al. 2012). Brown and Raymond (2007, 90) have noted that ‘place attachment is the environmental psychologist’s equivalent of the geographer’s sense of place’. Many contemporary researchers suggest that ‘sense of place’ is a combination of place attachment and place meaning (see for example Stokowski 2002; Stedman 2003; Semken and Freeman 2008; Smaldone, Harris and Sanyal 2008; Van Patten and Williams 2008). Therefore, for this thesis, sense of place also includes ‘umbrella’ terms such as place attachment, national identity and regional awareness (Shamai 1991, 347). With these various terms in mind, a ‘sense of place’ for this thesis concerns: 29

‘[The] feelings, attitudes, and behaviour towards a place which varies from person to person, and from one scale to another’ (Shamai 1991, 354).

‘Sense of place’ also refers to the ‘ability to recognise different places and different identities of place’ (Relph 1976, 63). ‘Sense of place’ describes the connections people have to certain places or the meanings individuals place on certain areas (Brown and Raymond 2007). ‘Sense of place’ is an overarching experience that crosses many geographical scales from the home to the local, national and international levels. A sense of place is constructed through (but not limited to) the ‘knowledge, belonging, attachment, and commitment’ that individuals link to places (Shamai 1991, 354). Rose (1995, 89) noted that while an individual’s sense of place is personally developed, it may also be influenced by ‘the social, cultural and economic circumstances in which individuals find themselves’. In particular, Rose (1995) identified three main factors that may define an individual’s sense of place. First, a sense of place is ‘natural’ and may be driven by a ‘territorial’ impulse as a type of survival mechanism (Rose 1995, 98). Second, a sense of place is shaped by ‘our cultural interpretation of the world around us’ (Rose 1995, 99). Finally, individual identities also influence a sense of place. An individual may develop an identity by ‘defining oneself in opposition to the other’ (Rose 1995, 104).

While the concept of a ‘sense of place’ is largely considered as a humanistic concept, there has been a recent revival of this concept (see for example Stedman 2003; Semken and Freeman 2008; Kudryavtsev et al. 2012; Soini et al. 2012; Venables, Pidgeon, Parkhill, Henwood and Simmons 2012). Malpas (2008) noted that a ‘sense of place’ refer to both the sense of character individuals develop towards places and an identity that is formed in relation to those places. These factors cultivate a ‘sense of belonging to those places’, which shape a sense of place (Malpas 2008, 199-200). Similarly, Soini et al. (2012, 124) identified that a sense of place encapsulates the ‘complex connections’ individuals have with space around them. Jorgensen and Stedman (2011) used a quantitative approach with structural equation modelling to demonstrate a correlation between the physical environment and people’s attachment towards it. The concept of a ‘sense of place’ has also been applied to business companies in a study conducted by Zaheer and Nachum (2011). They suggested that companies have the ability to inscribe meaning to the landscape and gain advantages from that location (Zaheer and Nachum 2011). Larson, De Freitas and Hicks (2013) concentrating on the natural environment, studied the relation between people’s senses of 30 place and their attitudes towards environmental preservation. Larson et al. (2013, 233) also stated that the theory of a sense of place is an ‘interesting and valuable concept worth further investigation’.

Senses of place can be distinctive to the individual character of a place, which arise from ‘particular histories or environmental settings’ (Foote and Azaryahu 2009, 96). However, senses of place are also dependent on an individual’s construction of them. Therefore, not all senses of place (even for a common location) are (or can be) the same (Eyles 1985). Differing and multiple senses of place depend on an individual’s identity and their contexts (Uguris 2004, 15). Peoples’ identities refer to the ‘lived experiences’ of the individual in (and of) place and includes the emotional responses the individual has towards that place (Rose 1995, 88). In any given place, a series of varying individual (and sometimes conflicting) identities will exist around associations with that place (Massey 1994). For example, individual identities may be constructed around factors such as ‘race, ethnicity, gender, class, sexuality, ability and age’ (Uguris 2004, 18), as well as ‘memories, ideas, feelings, attitudes, values, preferences, meanings, and conceptions of behavior and experience’ (Proshansky, Fabian and Kaminoff 1983, 59). These factors will influence an individual’s experience of place as well as the ability for individuals to connect or differentiate themselves to and from others in their communities (Weeks 1990). Therefore, a deeply entrenched part of identities are social relationships (Weeks 1990). As Massey (1993) has noted, places are best thought of as a series of interconnected social relations between individuals or groups of people rather than boundaries.

Bell and Newby (1978) claimed that the term ‘community’ has been almost as equally contested as the term ‘place’ in the academic literature. A study looking at 94 definitions of the word ‘community’ found that each definition cited social relations as a method that connected people with each other (Hillery 1955, ‘Definitions of Community, Areas of Agreement’ as cited in Blackshaw 2010). Tönnies (1955) contrasted ‘communities’ against ‘societies’: ‘gemeinschaft’ and ‘gesellschaft’ respectively. Gemeinschaft was characterised with common beliefs, ways of life and emotional bonds (Tönnies 1955). Whereas gesellschaft described more impersonal and calculated interactions between individuals (Tönnies 1955). Along with ‘place’ and ‘space’, this field of community attachment has also been plagued with inconsistencies in theorisation (Theodori 2000). A prominent empirical study in the field of community attachment was conducted by Kasarda and Janowitz (1974). 31

Using survey data, Kasarda and Janowitz (1974) tested two models to determine which factors affected community attachment. The ‘linear model’ considered whether population size and density affected social behaviour and attitudes (Kasarda and Janowitz 1974, 328). Kasarda and Janowitz (1974, 328) hypothesised that as populations grow larger, the connections individuals have towards their broader community weaken along with the ‘social significance of the local community’. Their findings rejected the ‘linear model’ in favour of the ‘systemic model’ (Kasarda and Janowitz 1974, 329). The systemic model described how community attachment and belonging is fostered through local kinship networks with length of residence a key factor (Kasarda and Janowitz 1974). Occupation and age were also influencing factors (Kasarda and Janowitz 1974).

Other studies (for example 1990) further tested and corroborated the systemic model. Theodori and Luloff (2000) applied the ‘systemic model’ (1974) to rural areas. Later work by Theodori (2001) also found that community attachment was strongly associated with individual wellbeing. Li, Ryan, Aurbach and Besser (1998) drawing on Kasarda and Janowitz (1974) determined that community attachment is higher when individuals are situated locally. This thesis remains cognisant of these theories but also draws on Trentelman’s (2009, 201) definition of ‘community attachment’ who described it as ‘a measure of sentiment regarding the community one lives in and an indicator of one’s rootedness to one’s community’.

Although ‘community’ is a vague and ambiguous term (Thorns 2002), it is used in this thesis to identify how senses of place are constructed within the two main identity groups, herein described as ‘communities’, in Millers and Dawes Points. The term ‘community’ in this thesis refers to ‘an aggregate of people who occupy a common and bounded territory within which they establish and participate in common institutions’ (Gans 1965, 104). Communities unify an otherwise diverse group of people that inhabit contested spaces, such as Millers and Dawes Points (Revill 1993). The term ‘communities’ and not ‘groups’ is used in this thesis because although communities may behave like groups, they lack the formality and structure ascribed to groups. The term ‘communities’ allows for the fluctuations in processes and interactions experienced in Millers and Dawes Points through space and time, unlike structured ‘groups’ (Relph 1976).

An inherent characteristic of communities is that to identify with a community, one concomitantly disassociates (sometimes in part, or temporarily) from other categories (and communities) of people (Bounds 2004). Through this association, senses of place can be refined through ‘unequal power relations’, where people identify with some individuals and exclude others according to their social positionings, as I demonstrate to be the case in Millers and Dawes Points (Rose 1995, 105). Differing positionalities enable communities to distinguish between groups of people to strengthen the bonds between themselves or to reinforce differences against others (Uguris 2004). For example, when communities identify with a place they are able to connect with a larger framework of people and fulfil a basic human need to feel a sense of belonging (Cresswell 1996). These connections to places and the communities within them assists to ‘enrich our notion of place’ (Eyles 1985, 63).

Alternatively, when a sense of place is positioned against other categories of people it is often operationalised with a view to discriminate against others who are deemed unacceptable for reasons such as differing socio-economic circumstances. It is through these unequal socio-economic positionings that the traditional and new communities in Millers and Dawes Points have attempted to maintain their senses of place by constructing boundaries that dictate that may become part of their community. By enforcing these boundaries, they aim to protect territory they perceive as their own.

In this thesis, the theory of a ‘sense of place’ demonstrates how residents have formed connections to their environment with the results presented in Chapter 5. These understandings provide greater insights into the ways the territorial processes discussed in Chapter 6 affect the residents living in Millers and Dawes Points. The theory of a ‘sense of place’ also contributes to the motivations behinds these territorial actions with the results presented in Chapter 6. The following section provides a review of the territoriality literature.

2.5 Conceptualising territoriality in Millers and Dawes Points This section provides a review of the literature that has conceptualised the notion of ‘territoriality’. Storey (2001) has identified two main conceptual paradigms: biological and/or genetic approaches and a socio-political paradigm. More recently, Francophone

33 literature has emerged within Anglophone sources of literature1 (Klauser 2012) to add another paradigm to biological and socio-political approaches to territoriality: a relational paradigm. While some authors use all three paradigms (see for example Ardrey 1967; Raffestin 1984; Sack 1986), most territoriality literature is not confined to a single category, falling within a range of biological, relational and socio-political arguments. For the purpose of this thesis, this literature review acknowledges some of the main arguments of behavioural and relational theories, but focuses on the paradigm most relevant to events in Millers and Dawes Points, which are socio-political acts of territoriality at the expense of a marginal group. In particular, this section explores the concepts put forward by Sack (1983; 1986) (a socio-political territoriality theorist) who has provided a comprehensive framework for conceptualising territoriality literature. Sack’s (1983; 1986) approach to territoriality has proved to be most applicable to this thesis because of his focus on the ways that individuals or groups will attempt to determine the actions of other groups or individuals through whatever means accessible to them (Agnew, Paasi and Sack 2000). For example, in Millers and Dawes Points the actions of the government and the new community have affected the traditional community’s claim to territory. This section begins by defining ‘territories’ with specific reference to Millers and Dawes Points. Next, I provide overviews of the biological, relational and socio-political approaches to territoriality. Finally, I analyse Sack’s (1983; 1986, 28) three main ‘facets’ of territoriality (amongst other relevant authors), which provides the conceptual underpinning of this thesis.

Scheflen and Ashcraft (1976), defined territories as intangible items that do not exist without human interpretation(s) of their environments. Further, Scheflen and Ashcraft (1976, 1) have explained that:

A territory is not a physical thing. It is formed and used by people but is not made up of people. In fact, it lies between, around, and among them. A territory is instead a relation or pattern of human behavior and movement.

Therefore, territories are spaces given meaning by people. Spaces without human interaction (through either physical manipulation or cognitive thought) are not perceived as territories (Scheflen and Ashcraft 1976). Our conception of territories occurs at a range of geographic

1 A recent example of Francophone territoriality theory in Anglophone literature is found in the journal Environment and Planning D – Society and Space 2012, Volume 30, Issue 1, Theme Issue: Claude Raffestin. 34 scales. This scale ranges from the home space to the territory defended by the nation-state. More recently, definitions of territories have expanded to note that they are ‘largely conceived as identifiable spaces internally bound by distinctive social, political, economic, and cultural institutions’ (Beaumont and Nicholls 2007, 2558). A widespread and modern example of territories can be examined through the ‘Western concept of private property in the form of land’ (Soja 1971, 19). By acquiring private property (or territory) through territoriality, individuals may possess (and control) space. This is largely the case in Millers and Dawes Points where ‘territory’ involves a series of multiple, overlapping and interrelated functions that compete to gain control over a highly sought after pocket of urban space near Sydney’s harbour (Storey 2001).

What drives humans to occupy space territorially forms the basis of the theoretical debate amongst territoriality scholars. Proponents of the theory argue that human territoriality is driven by biology – our genetics – argue that the desire for space is an intrinsic part of human behaviour and indeed for all species (Lorenz 1966; Ardrey 1967; Morris 1967). Ardrey (1967, 3) was an early and prominent theorist on territoriality, who stated that territory ‘is used to describe the inward compulsion in animate beings to possess and defend ... space’. This ‘inward compulsion’ is perceived to enhance an individual’s chances of survival and thus, is successfully passed on to subsequent generations (Ardrey 1967, 3). For biological proponents, territoriality is commonly expressed through aggression, for acts of aggression aid survival chances (Ardrey 1967). Dawkins (1976, 12) reduced biological arguments even further by stating that ‘self interest is not the species, nor the group, nor even, strictly, the individual. It is the gene, the unit of hereditary’. Here, Dawkins (1976) has implied that humans are vehicles subject to their genetics and this then influences their propensity to territorialise. Later, Malmberg (1980, 26) stated that ‘territorial defense is based on ... instinctive aggression’ thereby reinforcing that territoriality is an evolutionary product.

Other authors questioned the view that human territorial activity is a result of evolutionary and genetic traits alone. For example, Lewis and Towers (1969, 31) argued that Ardrey (1967) and Morris (1967) were ill equipped to comprehensively deal with ethological studies and did not provide enough evidence to support their statements. They also argued that the authors of the various references referred to by Ardrey (1967) and Morris (1967), refuted their arguments (Lewis and Towers 1969). Storey (2001) has also added that Ardrey (1967)

(amongst other proponents of biological human territoriality theories) incorrectly extrapolated the behaviour of humans from the behaviour of (other) animals.

A relational approach to human territoriality differs substantially from biological theories. Only recently has the relational paradigm gained interest in Anglophone literature as Raffestin (the most prominent author of the relational paradigm) has written in French, and for the most part this work has not been translated and is difficult to physically gain access to2 (Söderström 2007). According to Raffestin (1984, 140-141), territoriality is defined as:

... A complex of relations. In other words the relational spectrum of a collectivity, group, or individual constitutes its territoriality ... Territoriality is the system of relations of a collectivity or an individual with exteriority and/or alterity by means of mediators.

In contrast to the relational paradigm, Anglophone literature has remained more socio- political in its approach to human territoriality. Sack (1983; 1986), for instance, has put forward several publications based on a socio-political approach to territoriality. Klauser (2012, 114) has summarised the core differences between relational and socio-political approaches to territoriality:

Whilst Sack ... approach[es] territoriality as an outcome of mediations (a specific behaviour or strategy of control/defence of space), Raffestin focuses on the process of mediation itself. A theory of territoriality, for Raffestin, is a theory of mediation.

This thesis acknowledges both biological and relational arguments relating to territoriality but has concentrated on Sack’s (1983; 1986) socio-political because of the ways individuals and groups within Millers and Dawes Points have attempted to gain control of the space around them to achieve an outcome. Acts of territoriality are therefore in this case about power, which is the focus of this thesis, rather than acts of mediation. For Sack (1986, 19), territoriality is:

2 Only four of Raffestin’s 22 published works appear in English. In particular, Raffestin’s ‘groundbreaking’ work: ‘Pour une Ge¨ographie du Pouvoir’ has been published in Italy and Brazil (and not yet in English) (Klauser 2012, 106). It is beyond the scope of this thesis to engage in translation. 36

The attempt by an individual or group to affect, influence or control people, phenomena and relationships by delimiting and asserting control over a geographic area. This area will be called a territory.

Sack (1986, 5) has contended that ‘territoriality is a primary geographic expression of social power’. Territoriality is a mechanism that enables individuals or groups to control others by controlling territories (Sack 1986, 5). As such, territoriality intends to define social relations to allow people or groups to ‘construct and maintain spatial organizations’ (Sack 1986, 216).

Sack’s (1983; 1986) theorisations of territoriality have been drawn from several other authors who have also approached territoriality from a socio-political perspective. In particular Soja (1971, 33) viewed territoriality as a strategy that is designed to ‘fulfil political functions’, which provides the basis for social relations. Elaborating on Soja (1971), Bakker and Bakker-Rabdau (1973) noted how territoriality enables individuals to use space to take control of one’s life to act independently. As with Bakker and Bakker-Rabdau (1973), Gottman (1973, 14) perceived territoriality as a method for individuals to gain a level of autonomy over their lives in order to attain ‘the good life’. Altman (1975) has drawn on these theories and focused on how territoriality may be expressed in the landscape by examining the use of symbolic markers to indicate territorial possession of individuals or groups over areas. For Scheflen and Ashcraft (1976, 4) ‘the study of human territoriality is the study of human behaviour’. Following on from these theorisations, Sack (1986) has noted the importance of territoriality as an instrument used by ‘powerful institutions rather than simply passively wrought by patterns of interaction’ (Agnew in Agnew et al. 2000, 91). Thus, Sack (1986) has posited that powerful institutions, such as governments, have the ability to employ territorial techniques on a local scale. Sack (1986, 33) also noted that the ‘interrelationships among the territorial units and the activities they enclose may be so complicated that it is virtually impossible to uncover all of the reasons for controlling the activities territorially’.

2.5.1 Sack’s (1986) three interdependent relationships of territoriality Sack’s (1986, 21) exploration of territoriality included an explanation of three interdependent relationships, which ‘disclose the logic’ of territoriality. These three interdependent relationships have provided the conceptual framework for exploring the methods used by government and the new community to operationalise territoriality in Millers and Dawes 37

Points in this thesis. For Sack (1986, 28, emphasis added), ‘territoriality must provide a form of classification by area, a form of communication by boundary, and a form of enforcement or control’. Sack (1986, 21) described that these interdependent relationships are ‘contained in [the] definition’ of territoriality. This section explores these relationships to explain how territoriality has operated in Millers and Dawes Points.

According to Sack (1986, 32), territoriality ‘must provide a form of classification by area’. Although territoriality must be classified by area, classification by type (such as particular items within an area) is also an option (Sack 1986). For example, a person may define a room as off-limits to others rather than specifically state which items in that room may not be accessed (Sack 1986). Thus, classifying by area is a useful method for avoiding the need to stipulate exactly which items in an area are accessible.

For this thesis, ‘classification’ is used to describe the neoliberal economic structural changes and/or policy settings that influence the accessibility of Millers and Dawes Points. In line with Sack’s (1986`) description, these factors determine the elements in Millers and Dawes Points that are made available to the public. As is discussed further in Chapters 6 and 7 (Sections 6.2.1 and7.3.1 respectively) various stakeholders ‘classified’ Millers and Dawes Points as being largely inaccessible to certain members of the public rather than point to which areas of Millers and Dawes Points that may not be available.

Sack’s (1986, 32) second interdependent relationship of territoriality is ‘a form of communication by boundary’. That is, a form of communication expresses a sentiment about boundaries (Paasi 2003) or ‘direction in space’ (Sack 1986, 32). This form of communication may be as basic as simple hand gestures such as pointing (Sack 1986). While hand gestures are ‘mild’ forms of communication, territorial communication may progress to more ‘escalated’ versions of communication such as aggression and physical violence (Altman 1975, 124).

This thesis utilises Sack’s (1986) second interdependent relationship to scrutinise the ways in which the NSW state government and members of the new community have communicated their visions for Millers and Dawes Points. Chapters 6 and 7 (Sections 6.2.2 and 7.3.2 respectively) highlight the more passive and locally focussed measures that these groups have used to describe ‘directions in space’ (Sack 1986, 32). 38

Sack’s (1986, 32) third interdependent relationship of territoriality is ‘enforcement or control’. Sack (1986, 22) has explained that this facet of territoriality is more concerned with ‘influencing [the] interactions’ of others. The ways in which individuals or groups modify their environments (to indicate possession) has received the most attention in socio-political territoriality literature due to the limitless ways groups may territorialise (See for example Altman 1975; Bakker and Bakker-Rabdau 1973; Paasi 2003; Soja 1971). These authors have described the territorial measures used to enforce or restrain control that range from the provision of gateways to garden landscaping (Bakker and Bakker-Rabdau 1973). When describing territorial actions that have ‘enforce[d] control’ in Millers and Dawes Points, this thesis describes the ways in which the government and the new community have controlled and/or modified the environment to regulate access to space (Sack 1986, 21).

2.5.2 A return to territoriality Whilst Sack’s (1983; 1986) discussions about territoriality have been described as ‘influential’ (Kärrholm 2007, 438) and ‘pioneering’ (Elden 2010, 230), territoriality has also been considered as an under examined concept in geographical literatures (Cresswell 2004; Kärrholm 2007). Kärrholm (2007, 438), referring to Sack’s (1986) three interdependent relationships of territoriality, noted:

We are constantly obliged to observe territorial divisions and classifications ... in our daily activities in the city. Territorial regulations affect our behavior and movements in urban space ... In spite of this, territoriality has never been as much used as, for example, the concept of place.

Kärrholm (2007, 449) explained that ‘the concept of territoriality has seldom been used to its full potential’ and that its unpopularity may have been a result of problems with its definition. For example, defining territorial behaviour in humans is different to territorial behaviours in (other) animals as described in Section 2.5. According to Johnston (2001, 677) political geography has emerged from the ‘moribund backwater’ of geographical studies and that related topics such as territoriality have only just recently gained popularity. Vollaard (2009, 691) also highly regarded Sack’s (1986) views on territoriality stating that his work was one the ‘first and few extensive works on territoriality that [did] not suffer from [socio-biological or Westphalian] biases’. He explained that Sack’s (1986) three interdependent relationships highlighted how territoriality not only described ‘what territoriality is, but also what it does to 39 human organisations’ (Vollaard 2009, 692). Through Sack’s (1986) work, we understand that territoriality is not ‘passive’ but rather a result of human activity in the landscape (Vollaard 2009, 692). Largely referring to the work of Sack (1986), Murphy (2013, 1212) noted how the concept of territoriality is applicable to modern day landscapes:

It is important not to overlook the continuing hold of modernist territorial ideas on the geographical imagination ... Geographical writings on territoriality ... provide tools for understanding the power and inertia of modernist territorial ideas, which continue to influence patterns of identity and state practice in wide-ranging and significant ways.

Murphy (2013, 1216) also highlighted how Sack’s (1986) three relationships of territoriality ‘help to explain the continuing hold that modernist political–territorial conceptions have on the contemporary political–geographical imagination’. He noted that Sack’s (1986) relationships help us to understand the causes of territorial processes (Murphy 2013).

In light of these conceptual reappraisals of territoriality theory, there have been many recent studies that either largely rest on Sack’s (1986) work or have used his work to inform their research. The most significant literatures contributing to territorial discussions as well as increased understandings of territoriality for this thesis are presented below. As noted above (in this Section 2.5.2) Johnston (2001) identified that political geography and in particular territoriality studies have only recently gained prominence in geographical literature. An early example was a study conducted by Anderson and O’Dowd (1999) who used theories of territorialisation to examine changing state borders and border regions. They explained that state borders are not permanent but rather temporary because they are affected by territorial processes (1999). Brenner (1999, 41) also taking an international approach argued that globalisation has led to the acts of territoriality on both the ‘sub- and supra-national geographical scales’.

In 2001, the scope at which empirical studies of territorialisation were conducted was reconsidered by Johnston (2001, 684) who explained that Sack’s (1986) contributions allowed for further examinations of territoriality ‘at a variety of scales’. Peleman (2003) was one of the first authors to apply Sack’s (1986) theories at a local level by analysing how Muslim women were prevented access to public spaces due to the territorial behaviours of 40 dominant groups in Antwerp, Belgium. Peleman (2003, 151) concluded that ‘Sack’s [1986] theory is well suited to the analysis of territoriality at a neighbourhood level’ with the proviso that further studies document both the ‘dominance and resistance’ of other groups. These localised studies of territoriality inform this thesis. As explained in Section 2.3.1, van Gent (2013) claimed that middle range theories are needed to provide further explanations of gentrification processes. Sack’s (1986) theory of territoriality is applied to the ‘neighbourhood level’ of Millers and Dawes Points (Peleman 2003, 151). This thesis explores local ‘resistance’ to ‘dominant groups’, being the state government and residents of the ‘new community’ in this case study.

This localised approach to territoriality studies did not herald the end of its state based applications. Dean (2005) examined the territorialities of the Sino-Burmese boundary and the Kachin nation. However, in the same year, Brown, Lawrence and Robinson (2005, 577) used a localised approach which analysed how territoriality ‘constructs, communicates, maintains and restores’ control in organisations. Leaning on Sack’s (1986) definition of territoriality, Christie (2006) used a feminist political ecology approach to explore how kitchen space in Mexico was territorialised largely through gender. Adebanwi’s (2007, 213) slightly different take on territoriality analysed how territorial clashes between different ethnic groups in Nigeria simultaneously represented struggles over ‘identity, resources and power’. Later in 2009, Mantha (2009, 158) mapped the locations of above ground mortuary structures in Peru and described how their distribution reflected territorial mechanisms that served to ‘confine or exclude people from a bounded space by the delimitation of social boundaries’. This thesis draws on this notion of creating boundaries through territorial strategies that aim to include or exclude people in Millers and Dawes Points. Also related to this thesis is how Pow (2009, 91) linked territorial strategies to real estate describing how ‘gated communities are territorial place-making devices par excellence’. He described how the desire for gated residential living is the product of ‘exclusivist housing aspirations and desires of upper- and middle-class residents’ (Pow 2009, 93). The desires of this group of residents are reflective of the consumption-orientated practices of gentrifiers (as discussed in Section 2.2.1).

Recent studies have demonstrated the diverse applicability of territorialisation theory such as Radil (2010) who used Sack’s (1986) territorialisation theory to understand the geographies of gang rivalry in Los Angeles. Closely aligned with this thesis is how Ó Dochartaigh 41

(2011, 325-326) relied on Sack’s (1986) definition of territoriality to explain that the creation of ‘Northern Ireland state was a territorial strategy adopted by unionists in the early twentieth century as attempts to prevent Home Rule for Ireland’. This thesis similarly explored various territorial strategies that express control over space within Millers and Dawes Points. Studies by Faludi (2013) and Luukkonen and Moilanen (2012) have also looked at territorial strategies and applied them on a global scale by examining the territorial cohesion policy of the European Union. In what seems like a recent return to global scaled territoriality studies, Kythreotis (2012, 457) identified how ‘“territoriality” ... is fundamental in, and constitutive of, how we interpret and understand climate change and the politics thereof’. Yembilah and Grant (2014) relied heavily on Sack’s (1986) definition of territoriality to examine farmer– herder relationships in Northern Ghana where resources are common property and central to their livelihoods.

To contextualise the variety of contemporary territoriality based literatures discussed in this section (2.5.2), Table 2.1 provides a review of how these literatures address the relationship between external and local factors that affect place. These literatures demonstrate that through Sack’s (1986) framework, greater understandings of the ways local places are uniquely constructed (including their inhabitants’ senses of place) can be made.

Table 2.1: Contemporary literatures relying on Sack’s (1986) framework to explain relationships between external and/or local factors and places (in alphabetical order) How the study addresses how external and/or local Study factors may affect place

Adebanwi (2007) The examination of territorial clashes between different ethnic groups in Nigeria led Adebanwi (2007) to claim that these struggles stemmed from claims over identity and resources.

Anderson and O’Dowd (1999) With a focus on state borders, Anderson and O’Dowd (1999) explored how state borders are made and re- negotiated.

Brenner (1999) Brenner (1999) applied territoriality studies at an international scale to examine globalisation and its socio- political impacts at a state level.

Brown, Lawrence and By focussing on organisations, Brown et al. (2005) Robinson (2005) analysed how territorial tactics impacted on workspaces and their employees.

Christie (2006) This study explored how local determinants such as gender allowed the territorialisation of kitchen space shaping the culture of the local area.

Dean (2005) Dean (2005) examined how power relations have not affected traditional Kachin spatial practices.

Elden (2010) Elden (2010, 799) considered territory as a ‘bounded space’ on a local scale and a ‘bordered power container’ in state based applications.

Faludi (2013) Faludi (2013) focussing on the European Union, examined how territory cannot be viewed as fixed but rather must be shared amongst the states to create new understandings of territoriality.

Kärrholm (2007) Kärrholm examined the role of local factors including how materiality and material design affected power relations in public places.

Kythreotis (2012) Kythreotis (2012, 457) identified how ‘“territoriality” ... is fundamental in, and constitutive of, how we interpret and understand climate change and the politics thereof’. It is an examination of how extra-local factors deeply affected local spaces.

Luukkonen and Moilanen This state based study explored the strategies and practices (2012) of the territorial cohesion policy of the European Union.

Mantha (2009, 158) Mantha (2009, 158) argued how the distribution of above ground mortuary structures in Peru reflected territorial mechanisms that served to ‘confine or exclude people from a bounded space by the delimitation of social boundaries’.

Murphy (2013) By exploring modernist territorial ideas and its application in the Western Sahara, Murphy (2013) explained that the political and social impacts were widespread.

Ó Dochartaigh (2011) This study used territoriality for its state based applications and examined how public order was maintained via acts of territorialisation in Northern Ireland.

Peleman (2003) By using a territorial analytical framework at a local level, Peleman (2003) explored how Muslim women were prevented access to public spaces due to the territorial behaviours of dominant groups in Antwerp, Belgium.

Pow (2009) Using a territorial framework, Pow (2009) considered both local and extra local factors (such as privatism and neoliberal market logic) in the morality of gated communities.

Radil (2010) Radil (2010) compared the geographies of gang rivalry in Los Angeles to understand territorial behaviours.

Vollaard (2009) Vollaard (2009) took a state based approach of political territoriality to analyse how it undermined the creation of a combined European (federal) state.

Yembilah and Grant (2014) This study used territoriality and its local applications to examine farmer–herder relationships in Northern Ghana.

This section has canvassed the literature relating to the conceptualisation of ‘territoriality’, which forms the basis for this thesis. While acknowledging Raffestin’s (1984) relational approach to territoriality, this thesis is primarily concerned with Sack’s (1986) socio-political take on the subject and in particular his three interdependent relationships of territoriality. This section has also explored the recent influx of the concept of territoriality within contemporary geographical debates. In the following section, I provide a discussion on ‘placelessness’ and its relevance to this thesis.

2.6 A sense of placelessness In line with using middle range theories to explain local variation of gentrification processes, this thesis extends existing discussions of territoriality by identifying how territorial strategies enacted within Millers and Dawes Points have affected the residents living there. I use the notion of ‘placelessness’ to demonstrate how changes in Millers and Dawes Points have

44 contributed to the traditional community’s rising sense of ‘placelessness’ (Relph 1976, 143). Relph (1976, 143) has defined ‘placelessness’ as:

Elaborating on Relph (1976) Entrikin (1991, 57) stated that placelessness represents the ‘creation of standardised landscapes that diminish the differences among places’. Malpas (2008, 1978) described placelessness as the opposite of developing a sense of place and that it is ‘one of the characteristic features of modernity’. In short, Smith (2007, 99) noted that placelessness is more of an ‘emotion or feeling, an intangible response to one’s immediate environment’.

Although ‘placelessness’ is a humanistic concept (this is further discussed in Section 2.7), according to Seamon and Sowers (2008), scholarly articles on this topic have significantly risen over the last decade. In their review of both geographical and non-geographical literature, Seamon and Sowers (2008, 43) stated that Relph’s (1976) concepts of place and placelessness ‘continue to have significant conceptual and practical impact today’. For example, DeBres and Sowers (2009, 216) offered empirical evidence for the ‘theoretical propositions of humanist and critical geographers’. In their study of postcard images, they found that the homogenisation of American landscape was fostering an increasing sense of placelessness (DeBres and Sowers 2009).

Relph’s (1976) discussion of placelessness has proven to be broad in its application with some post-structuralist authors incorporating his concepts in tourism studies. For example, MacLeod (2006, 224) noted how ‘touristic commodification’ produced a growing sense of placelessness amongst some local residents during festivals. With Smale (2006) advocating for the widespread inclusion of Relph’s (1976) concept of placelessness in tourism studies, Harner and Kinder (2011, 730) recently connected the concept to a newly built shopping centre in Colorado Springs, which they argued created a ‘generic landscape’. In response to a sporting stadium that evoked a sense of placelessness, Penny and Redhead (2009, 755) documented how fans created a ‘sense of identity’ to revitalise the space. Birkeland (2008, 45

284) described how the industrialisation of Rjukan, Norway will result in an increasing sense of placelessness and cause ‘psychological, social, and economic implications’ on its local residents.

Closely aligned to this thesis is the connection between Relph’s (1976) concept of ‘placelessness’ and other urban spaces. Jivèn and Larkham (2003) proposed that urban designers have a responsibility to consult with stakeholders so as not to exacerbate placelessness. More recently, Jones and Evans (2012) also noted how urban design was essential to avoiding a sense of placelessness. They stated how ‘destroying material traces of sites with deep place associations’ may erase the connections individuals have with their environment (Jones and Evans 2012, 2326). A study conducted within Malaysia by Ismail, Egoz, Cushman, Aziz and Yunos (2013, 147) showed how new build residential homes have ‘created a sense of placelessness and alienation among the residents’, and Liu (2013) interviewed social housing residents while their estate was undergoing urban renewal. Liu (2013, 1) identified that although social housing residents remain in place during restoration, a sense of placelessness was ‘pervasive’ amongst the local community. This thesis has drawn on this contemporary return to Relph’s (1976) humanistic concept of placelessness to consider how the territorial strategies of the state government and residents of the new community have affected members of the traditional community. The following section explores this recent return to humanist geographies in more detail.

2.7 Critical humanist geographies As discussed in Section 2.3.1, this thesis responds to geographic literature requesting middle range theories that explain the ‘different geographies of gentrification’ (van Gent 2013, 519). The concept of ‘territoriality’ provides the foundations of this research, which is augmented by other theories, namely ‘sense of place’ and ‘placelessness’. All three of these theories have roots in humanistic geography. This geographical paradigm was developed because of the practical and theoretical limitations of positivist geography (as described in Section 2.4.1). Humanistic geographies were widely practiced around the 1970s and 1980s, however, geographical studies took another turn with the rise of post-structuralism. Post-structural geographers are said to be ‘anti-humanist’ and reject humanist notions that identify subjects as ‘unified, knowing and rational’ (Pratt 2000, 625). However, Adams, Hoelscher and Till (2001, xvi) have identified how many humanistic ‘interests and concerns ... are still relevant to geographers working in a humanities tradition today’. This relevance of humanistic 46 geography to the current post-structural paradigm is evident through theories of territorialisation. This chapter has provided a comprehensive account of recent studies that have engaged with the humanistic concept of territoriality (see Section 2.5). All of the discussed territoriality related literatures have based their theorisations on Sack’s (1986) socio-political definition of territoriality. Some authors have claimed that concepts of territoriality have been underused (see Kärrholm 2007) and others have highlighted the value of Sack’s (1986) framework and described its potential for further research on local areas (see Peleman 2003). The concepts of ‘senses of place’ and ‘placelessness’ also have roots within humanistic geography. As with territoriality related literatures, this chapter has also canvassed the variety of recent studies conducted on these topics (see Section 2.4 on ‘sense of place’ and Section 2.6 on ‘placelessness’).

While there has been a clear and recent post structuralist return to the humanistic concepts of ‘territoriality’, ‘sense of place’ and ‘placelessness’ this thesis has engaged these theories under the paradigm of what Adams et al. (2001, xvi) have described as ‘critical humanist geography’, which they explained to be:

The ‘critical’ label marks a maturation, rather than complete rejection, of humanistic geography insofar as it still draws heavily on its hermeneutical traditions ... [C]ritical humanist geographers continue to examine how signs, symbols, gestures, utterances, and local knowledges convey cultural meanings and create places.

Adams et al. (2001, xvi) also noted that:

Critical humanist geographers ... pay explicit attention to place and language, while it rejects a dependence on standards of either ‘objective’ geographic knowledge or radical antifoundationalism. It examines the various contexts - whether marked by differences in class, race, gender, sexuality, or nationality - within which individual meanings and social practices are produced, understood, and negotiated.

This thesis therefore sits in contrast to traditional humanist studies by avoiding and eschewing a universal truth about humanity. While this framework is relevant to other local 47 areas experiencing change (particularly those induced by gentrification), this thesis does not contend that such a framework can provide a generally applicable truth appropriate to all changing areas. Rather, this thesis is shaped by the diverse responses provided by residents to understand the ‘distinctive ... ways of perceiving and understanding the world’ (Adams et al. 2001, xviii). This thesis also differs from traditional humanistic geographies because it utilises a wide range of methodologies including in-depth interviews, participant observation, auto-photography and surveys (as discussed in Chapter 3).

2.8 Conclusion This chapter has provided an overview of the gentrification literature relevant to processes occurring in Millers and Dawes Points. Factors including both consumption and production forces of gentrification have been considered and it is understood that gentrification is best explained when these concepts are combined. This chapter also considered neoliberalism as a broader context for gentrification processes. However, criticisms have been levelled at this overarching generalisation, which does not fully explain ‘local variation’ (2013, 505). To deal with this issue, this thesis has developed a framework based on middle range theories to explain the processes occurring in Millers and Dawes Points. This chapter described this framework based on theories of ‘territorialisation’ that is empirically tested on the case study of Millers and Dawes Points. To conceptualise gentrification beyond the limitations of a single theory, ‘sense of place’ and ‘placelessness’ are also part of the framework. Although these concepts have roots in humanist geography, this chapter has provided an explanation about why this thesis has taken a modern ‘critical’ humanist approach to avoid some issues contained in past humanist studies.

Chapter 3 - METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction: The case study method The use of locality-based case study approaches in geography enables the researcher ‘to examine the ebb and flow of social life over time and to display the patterns of everyday life as they change’ (Orum, Feagin and Sjoberg 1991, 12). I used the case study approach to examine how the changes occurring in Millers and Dawes Points have produced a multi- layered landscape, visible today. By using the case study approach, I was able to design a multifaceted investigation that explored the changing socio-cultural (including economic) dynamics as well as the struggles that have manifested throughout Millers and Dawes Points’ history. I also examined how local pressures have shaped large-scale development applications (such as Barangaroo), which in turn affect local communities.

The historical influences on localities, such as Millers and Dawes Points, are complex to research, requiring more than one research method. The case study approach has enabled the utilisation of a ‘mixed methods’ technique to generate data (Yin 1989). A mixed methods approach facilitated an opportunity to gain insights and views about living in Millers and Dawes Points, as experienced by residents of the traditional and new communities (cf. Hardwick 2009). A further advantage was that the case study approach allowed for a longitudinal examination of the Barangaroo development, which enabled me to analyse and interpret a series of events associated with the development as they occurred over the course of my research (Snow and Anderson 1991).

This chapter details the methods used in my ‘mixed methods’ approach to data generation. First, a social history chapter was compiled to provide context for the evolving urban landscape of Millers and Dawes Points and its residents. Second, I detail the development of a survey instrument that was administered to the residents of Millers and Dawes Points to generate responses concerning local affairs in the case study area as well as demographic data. I then discuss the process of in-depth interviewing used in this thesis, and the incorporation of an auto-photographic methodology, which provided additional qualitative data to the trends established in the surveys. Participant observation is also discussed along with the ethical and legal issues raised by using surveys, in-depth interviews and auto-

49 photographical methodologies. I also explain how the data was analysed and the compilation of secondary data sources. Finally, I examine my personal positioning and my reflexive approach to the methodologies and data generated in this thesis.

3.2 Social history The case study approach to research enabled the use of a contextualised social history chapter to unpack the multi-layered landscape of Millers and Dawes Points as it has developed over time. Social histories offer ‘geographical perspectives’ about the past (Baker 1997, 240) and reveal a historical understanding about ‘societal phenomena or settings’ (Orum et al. 1991, 12). By constructing a social history of Millers and Dawes Points, it was possible to document the evolving tensions that occurred within the precinct that are vital to understanding the area. The social history documents the processes of settlement of two of the first neighbourhoods occupied during the European colonisation of Sydney. Including both primary and secondary resources, the social history chapter follows the path of Millers and Dawes Points from Aboriginal occupation to present day, and traces the actions of local residents and government authorities in their endeavours to create and occupy this urban space. While documenting these events, the social history chapter also traced the gentrification of Millers and Dawes Points. I explain how both production and consumption factors of gentrification have shaped the landscape visible today.

As Millers and Dawes Points have been significant locations throughout Sydney’s transformation into a global city, historical accounts of the area are manifold. Baker (1997) has emphasised that high quality social histories require a wide variety of sources to increase authenticity and ensure greater accuracy. The primary and secondary resources utilised for the social history chapter included a range of sources such as photographs, governmental reports and plans, newspaper reports, websites, historical plaques, oral histories and brochures. Historical narratives composed by some of the corporations involved in redeveloping the area were also included.

To provide a visual reference to the socio-political evolution of Millers and Dawes Points, cartographic data was collected. By examining the different usages of Millers and Dawes Points over time through these maps, it was possible to observe the process of Millers and Dawes Points becoming culturally and economically significant to Sydney. As maps are rarely constructed without some form of bias (Monmonier 1991), they also offer insights into 50 the power relations between local residents and government authorities. For example, by examining several different maps, I was able to determine how battles over urban space played out spatially by observing shifting suburb boundaries and changing place names.

By using a variety of sources, the social history chapter also helped to avoid reproducing ‘uneven power relations’ that may exist through the sole use of archival resources (Roche 2005, 141). For example, while an objective account of the past is impossible to elicit, the present day’s distance from the past favours the presentation of an impartial series of events (Baker 1997). Therefore, while it is possible to document the major events that occurred in Millers and Dawes Points, the full complexity of local affairs was impossible to capture in its entirety. Regardless, the social history chapter has traced the uneven development of Millers and Dawes Points under varied influences, from colonial governance to other phenomena common to global cities, such as gentrification. The social history chapter captures the economic, social and cultural shifts occurring in Millers and Dawes Points over time (cf. Winder 2009).

3.3 Survey design and development To capture the residents’ views concerning their senses of place and experiences of territoriality within Millers and Dawes Points, a survey instrument was deployed to generate data for this thesis. The use of a survey instrument was chosen because it is a practical, cost effective way of collecting data on a large scale (Bryman 2008; Walter 2013, 122). Surveys are useful for gathering information about a population’s ‘characteristics, attitudes, values, beliefs, behaviour and opinion’ (Walter 2013, 122). In addition, surveys offer flexibility because the researcher may ask many questions about a single topic (Babbie 2013). They also allow for standardisation since all respondents answer the exact same questions (Babbie 2013). These characteristics of surveys meant that they were an efficient and effective way of studying Millers and Dawes Points’ large population. The data generated has provided insights into resident views about local affairs, their behaviours within Millers and Dawes Points as well as their social interactions with other residents (McGuirk and O'Neill 2010).

Pilot studies are frequently used in case study approaches to test survey design and scope (Bryman 2008). They are an effective method for anticipating problems with research design because they highlight flaws in surveys by identifying gaps and wastage in data collection (Marshall and Rossman 2011). They may also refine research procedures by identifying any 51 logistical issues (Yin 2011). The appropriateness of the overall research structure can also be determined (Seidman 2013). The pilot study used for this thesis ensured that the survey questions were designed to address its aims (McGuirk and O'Neill 2010). To inform the content and design of the survey instrument, some preliminary investigations were conducted. I began collecting primary and secondary sources, which were later used for the compilation of the thesis’ social history chapter (Chapter 4). Upon inspection of these documents, it became clear that the area experienced several different historical periods that were accompanied by socio-economic demographic changes (these historical periods are documented in the Chapter 4). To gain a better understanding of how these historical changes have shaped the region and how such details might inform the design of the survey, discussions with residents about the changes occurring in their area were essential. The Millers Point Resident Action Group (that has been conducting meetings for around 20 years) provided an opportunity to contact local residents who would likely be knowledgeable of the changes occurring in their suburbs. After receiving permission by the Group’s Chair, Millicent Chalmers, to attend the meetings, I engaged in informal discussions with local residents from both the traditional and new communities. I asked these residents about some of the issues occurring in their suburbs such as the sales of social housing and the Barangaroo development. It was made clear to me during the discussions that the residents viewed their suburb as generally demarcated between the area’s social housing longer-term occupants and newer gentrifiers residing in the area (this distinction is further discussed in Chapter 4, Section 4.7.1). These two groups are referred to as the ‘traditional’ and ‘new’ communities in this thesis (a full description and justification for these communities is provided in Chapter 4, Section 4.7.1). I attended three meetings before I designed and distributed my pilot survey.

With first-hand information about how Millers and Dawes Points’ residents viewed the socio- economic demographics in the area, I designed the pilot study. The pilot survey deployment at The Rocks was selected because of its relevance to Millers and Dawes Points through its historical similarities and a close physical proximity to the case study research location.

3.3.1 Piloting the survey instrument Seventy-nine surveys were delivered to ‘Sirius’ (The Rocks’ social housing apartment development) with five surveys returned: a six percent return rate (see Appendix II). To increase the response rate for Millers and Dawes Points, I undertook a series of promotional tasks. First, I added a visual methodology titled ‘Community Eyes’, which enabled residents 52 to use photographs as part of the data gathering process (this visual methodology is described in further detail in Section 3.4). This method may have appealed to residents as the participation rate increased (on average) by 9 percent from the initial pilot survey response rate. It also enabled those who were not interested in communicating their views to me through the survey instrument to express themselves in a different way.

Before distributing the main survey instrument, I presented the details of my research during Millers Point Resident Action Group meetings. I was permitted to give two presentations, which lasted around three minutes. These presentations covered who I was (i.e. a PhD student from the University of NSW) and a quick overview of the research I was conducting on their suburbs. To raise further awareness of my research, I also explained that I would be distributing surveys to all households in the area. I encouraged residents to share the details of my research with their community in hopes that awareness of my research would spread by ‘word of mouth’. I received varying responses from the community during my presentations, which affected how I positioned myself within the research and is presented in Section 3.9. In addition, I decided to distribute surveys to every household in the area (rather than every second or third property, as is a common research technique) to increase the response rate. In short, I endeavoured to bring as many participants on board as possible – the survey ended up being one device in a suite of research methods.

With the six surveys returned, I was able to identify errors and amend the survey accordingly. These amendments included altering the survey from four to five sections to increase clarity and coherence. Other alterations included the rewording of some questions, the inclusion of additional questions, plus alterations to the question layout. For example, to gauge the residents’ connections to place, a section on the history of Millers and Dawes Points was added. To acquire clearer responses about specific developments and projects in Millers and Dawes Points such as Barangaroo and Walsh Bay, the questions in the ‘Development and Planning’ section were also modified. When administered to Millers and Dawes Points, the modified survey produced a higher level of elaboration by the residents, and therefore more data.

Three survey instruments were then finalised and distributed to residents within Millers and Dawes Points in order to draw out the cultural similarities and differences that existed in the area (these survey instruments are described further in the following section). To generate 53 details about resident demographics, relationships and urban character, the surveys comprised of both quantitative and qualitative questions. The questions also helped to reveal information about the aesthetic appeal of their area, and other local current affairs.

A cover letter describing the research was provided with each survey distributed (see Appendix III). The letter invited residents to complete and return the survey by reply-paid envelope and to consider participating in the in-depth interviewing stage of the research. The reply paid envelope allowed residents the time to contemplate their responses at their own convenience, whilst also providing anonymity. McGuirk and O’Neill (2010, 193) noted that anonymity is particularly beneficial for social housing residents as ‘public housing tenants ... might be wary about offering candid opinions about their housing authority’. The use of the reply paid envelopes proved successful as the returned surveys included many straightforward responses concerning both Housing NSW (their housing authority) and their neighbours. Anonymity was also useful for residents of the new community who may also have been wary about offering upfront responses regarding the ‘controversial’ issues in the area, such as the sales of social housing.

3.3.2 Survey distribution To obtain the best possible response rate, surveys were hand-delivered to every accessible letterbox in Millers and Dawes Points – a distribution method similar to census survey delivery. Two constraints associated with this method of delivery were letterbox accessibility and designating suburb boundaries. While most letterboxes were easily accessible (as they were situated external to any restricted areas), larger apartment developments had secured letterboxes that were not publicly accessible. Posting the surveys to each restricted letterbox was considered but ultimately rejected, as there was a high probability that the concierge would identify the surveys as ‘junk mail’1. In total, of the seven major apartment developments in Millers and Dawes Points, four allowed access to their letterboxes2. The remaining three apartment developments3 permitted a box of surveys to be placed in the

1 Before I distributed the surveys, I consulted with a concierge of one of the apartment complexes in Millers Point who informed me that mass distribution of the surveys to each resident would have them easily identified as ‘junk mail’. Once identified as junk mail, the concierge stated that the surveys would then be disposed of. 2 The apartment developments that allowed access included The Stamford Marque, Stamford on Kent, The Grand and The Parbury. 3 The apartment developments that permitted a box of my surveys in the mailroom included The Observatory Tower, The Highgate and Pier 6/7 Apartments. 54 mailroom, which allowed residents to take a survey at their own discretion4. A sign describing the context of the research accompanied these boxes (see Appendix IV).

I distributed surveys to Millers and Dawes Points’ residents based on three separate tenure types. These separate tenure types included: 1. A survey for social housing residents in Millers Point, 2. A survey for private dwelling residents in Millers Point, and 3. A survey for private dwelling residents in Dawes Point

The three different surveys were designed to match the survey’s destination (see Appendices V, VI, VII). As a result, some questions within the surveys required minor alterations to match the survey’s destination. The questions that differed between each survey were questions 4, 6, 12, 13, 18, 23, 24 and 29. In these questions, the suburb name was altered to match the survey’s destination. In addition, Question 23 asked: ‘Do you think public housing residents cause concerns for the local community?’ was reworded to better address the concerns of the social housing community. Thus, for social housing residents, Question 23 was rephrased: ‘Do you think the wider community accepts the public housing community?’ Question 24 asked residents to elaborate on their concerns for the social housing community but was also appropriately rephrased for social housing residents.

Given the varying housing tenures and a long history of shifting suburb boundaries in Millers and Dawes Points (where even current official maps have contradictory suburb boundaries), it was necessary to make decisions about what household would receive which version of the survey. Making personal judgements to delineate suburb boundaries was potentially fraught. As Harvey (1990, 419) warned, ‘the very act of naming geographical entities implies a power over them, most particularly over the way in which places, their inhabitants and their social functions get represented’. When I assigned a particular area to a certain suburb, residents may have disagreed with my suburb designation of their location. This was an unavoidable issue. Instead, I considered my selected suburb boundaries as a hypothesis: I would investigate the extent to which residents from my designated suburb areas held similar views with each other. I also explored whether these views differed with residents from surrounding areas. My designated suburb boundaries were largely based on a combination of

4 A total of 50 surveys were placed in each box (the response rate of the surveys is discussed in Section 3.3.2.1). 55 current maps of the area, tenure types and the natural topography of the area, which is a prominent feature (see Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1 has been removed due to Copyright restrictions

Figure 3.1: The suburb boundaries I applied to Millers and Dawes Points5. Dawes Point’s Private Dwellings are highlighted in red and concentrated on the northern foreshore of Millers and Dawes Points. Millers Point’s Private dwellings are highlighted in yellow and located at the southern end of Millers and Dawes Points. Millers Point’s Social Housing are highlighted in blue and located mainly in the centre of Millers and Dawes Points. Source: (Google Earth 7.0 2013c)

During data collection and analysis, the private dwelling residents in Millers Point and Dawes Point indicated that residents from these tenure designations held similar views about the issues raised in the survey. Therefore, it became clear that the responses from private dwelling residents in both Millers Point and Dawes Point should be combined to form one single cohort: the ‘new community’. The responses from residents of the new community would be compared to the social housing residents’ responses, a cohort known as the ‘traditional community’6.

3.3.2.1 Survey response rate In total, 1059 surveys were delivered to Millers and Dawes Points’ letterboxes. A breakdown of the distribution of the surveys can be seen in Table 3.1. Four hundred and forty seven surveys were delivered to the traditional community with 38 returned creating a response rate of nine percent. Six hundred and twelve surveys were distributed to the new community with 140 surveys returned creating response rate of 23 percent. However, when the boxes of surveys that were placed in the three major apartment complexes (not individual letterboxes of the apartment development) are taken into account, the response rate drops to 18 percent (see Table 3.1). Although, it is likely that not all surveys from these boxes were collected by the residents making an accurate response rate impossible to calculate. Therefore, by averaging the two response rates (with and without the boxes of surveys), I estimated that the new community’s survey response rate sits at approximately 21 percent.

5 Due to the sales of social housing, the ‘Millers Point Social Housing’ area contained 16 private dwellings. These households received the ‘Millers Point Private Dwelling’ survey. The addresses of these households have been withheld to protect the residents’ anonymity. 6 An examination of the characteristics that define the traditional and new communities is located in Chapter 4, Section 4.7.1. 56

Table 3.1: Summary of numbers of surveys distributed to the traditional and new communities and surveys returned. Surveys Surveys placed in a box Tenure Surveys Response Delivered to within apartment Type Returned Rate Letterboxes complex Traditional 447 n/a 38 9% Community New 612 150 140 ≈21% Community

The response rates from the traditional and new communities are clearly low. It is difficult to predict if my attempts to increase survey replies were effective as response rates could have been even lower without my efforts to encourage participation (such as my presentations during the Millers Points Resident Action Group meetings and Community Eyes as discussed in Section 3.9). According to Morton, Bandara, Robinson and Carr (2012, 107) a ‘low response rate does not automatically mean the study results have low validity, they simply indicate a potentially greater risk of this’. They continued to state that:

Response rate[s] alone may no longer be sufficient evidence to judge study quality and/or validity, and perhaps should never have been accepted as a suitable single proxy measure for all measures of study validity (Morton et al. 2012, 108).

Although high response rates are not necessarily an indicator of ‘study validity’ the results obtained from the survey instrument were addressed with some caution (Morton et al. 2012, 108). As a result, statistical analyses were not conducted (such as significant difference testing as I had originally planned) as results would only reproduce the skewness and bias of the data. Instead, I opted to present the data as general trends that were reflective of the traditional and new communities in this space and time (further discussion regarding data analysis is presented in Section 3.7). These trends were corroborated with data collected from in-depth interviews, auto-photography, participant observation and other secondary sources using ‘triangulation’ (this technique is further described in Section 3.7.2).

3.4 Photo-elicitation and semi structured in-depth interviewing As case study based investigations are highly focussed on the spatial interactions between people and place it is necessary to include direct observations of the researched environment (Ziller 1990). Consequently, visual methodologies were deployed during this research in 57 order to substantiate claims about ‘landscape, place and process’ (Bartram 2003, 149). Visual methodologies are based on the premise that scientific insights can be made by ‘observing, analyzing and theorizing [society’s] visual manifestations’ (Pauwels 2011, 3). Visual methodologies offer ‘valuable insights into the everyday worlds of participants’ (Barbour 2013, 42) by exploring the ‘perceptions and meanings’ given to images (Prosser 2011, 479). To gain this insight ‘auto-photography’ was used to ground the research in an ‘interactive context’ (Schwartz 1989, 120) and assist in understanding the qualities of environments and places important to residents in their daily lives (Thomas 2009). Auto- photography was a researcher provided tool used to study human-environment interactions whilst also actively engaging residents in the production of knowledge (Thomas 2009; Sparkes and Smith 2014). Rhodes and Coomber (2010, 69) have described that auto- photography is useful when trying to ‘depict a hidden environment’. For this research, auto- photography was a unique mechanism that allowed for further understandings of residents. Residents were able to reveal what they felt was important in the identity construction of their neighbourhood by taking photos of subjects of their own choosing. However, as will be shown towards the end of this Section (3.4), the data gained from photo-elicitation was more important than the individual photographs.

The auto-photographic methodology was used for what I have labelled, the ‘Community Eyes Project’. This project drew upon an exhibition titled ‘100 Eyes’ in Launceston, Tasmania where the local council provided disposable cameras to 100 residents to document their city7. Residents who participated in the Community Eyes Project were recruited through the survey where a short description of the project was provided allowing residents to provide their contact information if they chose to participate. To encourage residents to participate in the project, I stated that I would collate their photographs into a short booklet that would document the distinctiveness of their suburbs8. A copy of this booklet is provided in

7 The exhibition was held at Launceston in October 2008 in conjunction with The Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery. 8 An aim of the Community Eyes Project was to encapsulate the spirit of Millers and Dawes Points’ socio- cultural identity from the residents’ point of view. To achieve this, a booklet was produced and distributed to the area’s local community and beyond. The booklet consisted of a selection of the residents’ photographs accompanied by a quote from the same resident that described what made Millers and Dawes Points a ‘unique and special place?’ To produce the Community Eyes booklet, I was awarded with A$2 250 from the City of Sydney’s Local Community Grants Program 2011/2012 to design and print 83 copies of the booklets. Booklets were distributed to the City of Sydney’s nine libraries and local stakeholders, such as the Millers Point Resident Action Group. Booklets were also issued to local cafes and restaurants for visitors (both local and abroad) to view. In order to ensure the long-term success and longevity of this project (as the number of booklets available is finite) an online ‘facebook’© page (a popular online social networking site) was created to accompany the 58

Appendix VIII of this thesis. Residents who agreed to participate were then contacted and provided with a brief list of instructions to assist them in completing the task (see Appendix IX). Residents took photographs using their personal cameras and returned their images to me via email. The main goal that was asked of participating residents was to use photographs to answer the question:

‘What makes your suburb a unique and special place?’

The Community Eyes Project was undertaken to provide insights into the ways that residents perceived, understood and interpreted their local environment. The photographs therefore reflected the residents’ intentions when taking the photo (Ziller 1990). Thomas (2009, 249) has noted that ‘the social identities of the photographer are just as important as the objects or images that the photographs indicate’. This means that ‘any photograph is not merely a neutral reflection of what is captured in the frame of the picture’ and that the visual image reflects the main concerns of the individual (Thomas 2009, 250). The project therefore enabled me to similarly explore the social and spatial relationships between the residents and their local suburbs by considering why certain scenes were captured (Thomas 2009).

The number of photographs returned to me varied, with some residents sending as few as five, while others returned over 140 images9. For each resident that returned photographs, I created photo albums that could be referred to during the semi-structured interviews. The photo albums enabled the ‘photo-elicitation’ technique to be used within interviews (Harper 2002, 13). Photo elicitation is described as the process whereby ‘photographic images are used to stimulate [discussion] and guide an interview’ (Moore, Croxford, Adams, Refaee, Cox and Sharples 2008, 51). Photo-elicitation allowed residents to raise and discuss issues of importance to them. As a result, the auto-photographic method became a heuristic device that prompted residents to elaborate on their experiences living within Millers and Dawes Points. The discussions that emerged out of using photographic stimuli were essential in guiding the research, and thus became more important to this research than the photographic images alone.

booklet. This Community Eyes facebook© page (or the online version of the Community Eyes booklet available at: http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Community-Eyes-Millers-and-Dawes- Point/194441533910272) has ensured that the spirit of Millers and Dawes Point, as captured by a group of local residents, has longevity. 9 When residents enquired about how many photographs they should submit, I suggested around 10-20 images. 59

In total, 16 participants provided photographs that acted as catalysts for discussion during the in-depth interviews10. The socio-economic attributes of these residents are detailed in Appendix I. The interviews lasted for as long as the interviewees wished to discuss their views concerning Millers and Dawes Points. Thus, the duration of interviews ranged from 30 minutes to more than four hours. On average, interviews lasted around one hour. All interviews were digitally recorded (with permission) and later transcribed to allow for detailed analysis. As the number of interviews performed increased, a point was reached where no new or significant details were emerging. This threshold, termed ‘purposeful sampling’, indicated that I had interviewed an appropriate number of residents and extensively canvassed pertinent topics to my research (Baxter and Eyles 1997, 513). The attainment of this threshold signified that undertaking further interviews would probably be a redundant exercise.

While the thesis focused on the views of the traditional and new communities, a resident from the traditional community suggested I make contact with the Public Housing Liaison Officer from the City of Sydney Council. The government employee agreed to an in-depth interview and provided a unique perspective on the planning and policy side of issues such as the sales of social housing and the Barangaroo redevelopment. Because the issues covered in this thesis were topical and continued to evolve throughout the duration of the research, keeping myself informed of resident activities was necessary. To remain updated, I added my email address to the Barangaroo Action Group’s emailing list. This kept me abreast of the activities of the group and their reactions to recent developments regarding the planning of the Barangaroo precinct.

Additional attempts at conducting in-depth interviews were also undertaken during community meetings (these meetings were discussed in Section 3.3). Following the conclusion of these meetings, I approached representatives from Housing NSW and held informal discussions where topics such as the motivations behind the 99-year leases were canvassed. These discussions reiterated much of what was already presented during the meetings. I also asked these representatives for follow up in-depth interviews but was directed instead to informational pamphlets published by Housing NSW about the leases. Further attempts to make contact for in-depth interviews were also unsuccessful. To

10 Thirteen residents from the new community and four residents from the traditional community volunteered to participate in the Community Eyes Project. 60 substitute in-depth interview information, I used media releases from Housing NSW (along with other Housing Ministers) and quotes from more reputable newspapers such as the Sydney Morning Herald, which were in abundance.

3.4.1 Auto-photography limitations The auto-photographic methodology has limitations because the context in which the visual data is produced is subject to various influences. For example, although the photographer is in control of the camera and consequently the pictures they take, they were still working within the framework of the Community Eyes Project, which I designated for them. While I had the choice of framing any question more specific to my research, I decided that the project’s question (‘what makes your suburb a unique and special place?’) would be most suitable, as it targeted those with attachments to the local area. The inoffensive and general nature of the question encouraged as many participants as possible to join the project. Because I specifically requested residents to communicate the more positive attributes about Millers and Dawes Points, the question risked gaining a one-sided representation of the area. However, participants captured some of the more ‘controversial’ elements of the area such as the sales of social housing, which was highly relevant to my research.

3.5 Participant observation To observe the everyday interactions between residents, a standard ‘participant observation’ research method was used. This method has been used to act as ‘complementary evidence’ to support other more formal modes of data generations (Kearns 2010, 242). This method enabled me to get a better ‘feel’ for the social atmosphere experienced by residents in their everyday setting from their perspectives (Bennett 2002, 141). This documentation of their social atmosphere helped me pay attention to their regular living circumstances such as their socio-economic status. Observing participants in the research setting is particularly useful for gathering information about ‘how people feel about themselves, their neighbourhoods, and their issues of concern’ (White 2013, 302-303). Participant observation took form as ‘uncontrolled observation’ where I was not restricted to observing a set list of items (Kearns 2010, 242).

Participant observation allowed me to observe a wider range of details that I may have previously missed as it was a technique that I engaged with each time I was in the field and/or

61 interacting with residents. While I was not restricted to a list of items to observe, I did make mental and written notes on general items such as appearance and upkeep of homes, models and numbers of cars, and respondent attire (especially during interviewing) that might typically give a very general indication of socio-economic status. An example of these notes taken following interviews with residents in Millers and Dawes Points is provided in Appendix X. I was able to make assessments that helped me to subjectively determine the socio-economic status of the residents. During the process of logging my notes, participant observation also assisted me in capturing my changing positionality throughout the duration of the research, which is discussed in Section 3.9.

The notes taken during participant observation were also a critical part of the ‘writing’ as analysis method. Ong (1982, 77) noted ‘without writing, the literate mind would not and could not think as it does ... when engaged in writing’. By moving ideas from the mind to text, arguments may be ordered and refined (O'Leary 2004). Writing not only allows for ‘conceptual leaps’ but also the further development of ideas and concepts (Rapley 2011, 286). Rapley (2011, 286) has described that ‘the practice of writing and working from field notes is vital’ because the notes offer a step towards developing a more refined analysis. As such, writing became an essential practice ‘at all stages of the analytic trajectory’ of this research (Rapley 2011, 287).

3.6 Ethical and legal considerations To carry out this research, which included very personal accounts and circumstances of those who participated, I obtained the necessary ethics approval from the Human Research Ethics Advisory Panel (Psychology) at the University of New South Wales. Prior to in-depth interviews, residents were informed of the nature of the research and completed formal and written consent to be interviewed. I also informed residents of their right to withdraw at any stage of the research process.

As part of the research process it was necessary for residents to be de-identified to ensure confidentiality. In line with proper de-identification technique, each resident was allocated an ID number so they could remain anonymous (de Vaus 2002; Dunn 2005). Residents who were in-depth interviewed are referred to as ‘Respondent #1’ (etc) in this thesis; and residents who completed the surveys are termed ‘Survey Respondent #1’ (etc). All residents interviewed indicated that they were comfortable being referenced in this manner. 62

For the Community Eyes Project, there were several additional ethical and legal concerns raised by the University of New South Wales Legal Office regarding the copyright of the images and consent of photographed individuals. As a result, the University of New South Wales Legal Office drafted contracts that itemised the terms of participation and licence for the residents. This contract gave me full republishing rights of the photographs and provided residents with restrictions on who could be photographed. For example, people under the age of 16, individuals with disabilities or illnesses and/or those who do not wished to be photographed could not be captured within the residents’ images without appropriate consent. A further contract was created to ensure publishing consent from third parties photographed by residents was provided.

3.7 Data analysis The survey questionnaires yielded both quantitative and qualitative data. Qualitative questions were coded into the most significant categories, as evident from all responses to produce quantitative results. Coding involves attaching labels or tags to qualitative data (Punch 2005, 199) and is widely considered an integral part data analysis (see for example Bryman 2012; Charmaz 2006; Patton 2002; Punch 2005; Willis 2013; Saldaña 2013). Coding, as described by Liamputtong (2013, 242) is ‘the first step for the researchers to move beyond tangible data to make analytic interpretations’. According to Charmaz (2006, 45) ‘coding is more than a beginning; it shapes an analytic frame from which you build the analysis’. Willis (2013, 324) summarised coding by stating that it is ‘an integral first part of qualitative analysis’. For without coding ‘there is chaos and confusion’ (Patton 2002, 463). Despite the advantages of coding qualitative data, there has been some criticism levelled at the methodological technique (see for example Miles 1979; Campbell, Quincy, Osserman and Pedersen 2013). Argyrous (2009, 228) summarised that those against coding qualitative data argue that ‘breaking down the data into discrete codes or categories runs the risk of losing sight of the overall meaning of the data ... [and] removes the data from their context and destroys their coherence’. In response to these arguments, Willis (2013, 324) has stated that coding ‘is the task of the qualitative researcher to ensure that the richness of the meanings in the material remains’. And if performed correctly, good coding categories may preserve the integrity of the data (Argyrous 2009). Bodgan (1975, 86) has described that coding offers researchers the benefit of a deeper level ‘of understanding of the setting they have researched’. For Dey (1993), while coding may result in some loss of data richness, this is offset by the ability to compare codes against each other. The ability to make comparisons 63 was particularly useful for this thesis because through coding I was able to compare and contrast the responses provided by the traditional and new communities.

Rather than dismiss the claims made by authors who have levelled criticism at the coding methodology (as described in the paragraph above), I have been cautious in its application. The coding technique was not applied to the in-depth interviews and only six qualitative questions from the survey instrument were coded11. Much of the context from the surveys could be communicated by stating which question from the survey the data in the figure came from. In addition, all figures throughout this thesis were given titles that used much of the same wording from the questions the graph corresponded to.

Coding the responses from six questions in the survey was informed using an established coding framework as outlined by Miles and Huberman (1994). An important part of this framework is ‘data reduction’ (Miles and Huberman 1994, 10) which describes the action of selecting the most relevant pieces of data and discarding those not important to the analysis. This ‘data reduction’ process may be carried out by classifying the data. Dey (1993, 41) has described that ‘classifying ... data is an integral part of the analysis: it lays the conceptual foundations upon which interpretation and explanation are based’. Classification is the process where descriptive labels are allocated to categories of data to allow the researcher to analyse the data (Dey 1993). To develop labels for the survey responses in this thesis, I initially read over 100 surveys and taking notes about what appeared to be the most common responses provided by the residents. What became apparent during this note-taking process was that many of the responses provided by the residents were not written in full sentences. Answers to survey questions were often provided as a single word or a series of words, not structured as full sentences. An example of these shorter responses is provided in Table 3.2. The benefit of these shorter responses is that I could use what Charmaz (2006) described as ‘in vivo’ codes. ‘In vivo’ codes are terms or labels that respondents use themselves and ‘help ... to preserve participants’ meanings of their views and actions in the coding itself’ (Charmaz

11 These questions included: Q12: ‘How would you describe the character of Millers Point/Walsh Bay?’, Q16: ‘If ‘Yes’, what concerns [do you have about the future character of your suburb]?’, Q24: ‘If you have concerns [about public housing residents], please describe them.’, Q25: ‘What are your opinions about the recent sale of Housing NSW (public housing) terrace homes?, Q33: ‘What is your opinion about “Barangaroo” (i.e. the new proposed development being built on the Western side of Millers and Dawes Points, also known as “The Hungry mile”)?’, Q39: ‘How has your neighbourhood changed of not changed?’. These questions became Figures 5.4, 6.5, 5.8, 5.7, 7.6 and 6.11 respectively. 64

2006, 55). By using the residents’ terms to classify data, I was able to address some of the concerns raised about coding data by ensuring that some of the richness of the data remained.

Table 3.2: Examples of shorter responses provided by residents. Question Answer Question 12: How would you describe the ‘Vibrant, cultural, changing’ (Survey character of Walsh Bay (also known as Respondent #403). Dawes Point)? Question 18: How would you describe the ‘Relaxed’(Survey Respondent #407). community atmosphere in Walsh Bay? Question 24: Are you aware of any concerns ‘Loud noise, drug/alcohol use/abuse, that private householders might have about domestic violence’ (Survey Respondent #38). local public housing residents? If ‘yes’, please describe them.

After reading through 100 surveys making notes about potential labels that could be applied to the data, I began re-reading the surveys and using in-vivo codes to generate categories. While applying labels to data, I ensured that the process was a reflexive one. According to Dey (1993, 118) ‘the process of developing categories is one of continuous refinement’. Thus while coding; the categories I assigned to data were subject to modification. For example, in question 18: ‘How would you describe the community atmosphere is Millers Point/Walsh Bay?’, I received a range of responses that included ‘deteriorating’, ‘in decline’, ‘dying’ and ‘decaying’. Rather than have separate categories for each of these responses and risk not finding any valid trends through the data, I grouped these responses together to form one category: ‘deteriorating’. In addition, if responses for some questions did not generate many hits across all respondents, I created an ‘other’ category to groups these categories together. See Appendix XI for a full list of all the codes used to classify data. With the results from six questions from the survey quantified, Microsoft Office Excel© 2010 was used to create graphs to visually present the results of the data.

In-depth interviews were transcribed and sorted into themes that corresponded with the topics outlined in the surveys. These themes included topics pertaining to the residents’ community, history and heritage of the area as well as new developments occurring in the district. By narrowing on these themes, I was able to draw out and focus on other issues more specific to their local area such as the social housing sales and the Barangaroo redevelopment. As a result, the in-depth interviews supported the quantitative and qualitative

65 data gained from the survey and helped to provide greater insights into the key trends identified from the results of the surveys.

3.7.1 Auto-photographical interpretation As each set of photographs were unique to the individual resident, individual photo albums were organised into ‘themes’ that had been inspired by the residents’ images. A summary of these resident inspired themes are described in Table 3.3 below where some residents’ albums included all themes, whereas others contained as few as one theme.

Table 3.3: Description of themes revealed through the images residents captured of Millers and Dawes Points and its surrounds. Theme Explanation Residents centred their photographs around particular spaces, which frequently included locations such as The Rocks, Millers Point, Locality Walsh Bay, Dawes Point, Observatory Hill, Barangaroo and streets within Millers and Dawes Points. The views from Millers and Dawes Points were heavily featured in Vistas the residents’ photographs. Examples included views of Sydney Harbour, the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Sydney Opera House. Residents provided many images of Millers and Dawes Points’ built environment. Photographs ranged from residential homes to Built Environment commercial infrastructure. Photographs of contrasting architecture

were also common, such as images comparing high and low-rise housing. Other photographs were frequently captured to acknowledge local Local Issues controversial issues within Millers and Dawes Points. For example, photographs of social housing with ‘for sale’ signs were common. Several photographs depicted residents and visitors partaking in various activities in the local area. A wide range of activities were Activities captured and included fishing, attending local markets, festivals, local weddings and tennis. Millers and Dawes Points have a selection of historic artefacts that Public Art and may also be considered as public art. Photographs of public art in Artefacts the area included the ‘spider’ installation, ‘bird’s nest’, ‘stoned car’ as well as other historic artefacts in Wash Bay.

The process of attaching thematic labels to residents’ photographs is subjective as the ‘interpretation of what one sees depends on a wide range of environmental, individual and social factors’ (Howitt 2001, 75). To avoid some of the potential bias associated with my theme labelling, the in-depth interviews provided a context for residents to clarify what they 66 wanted to express with the photographs. As a result, what was verbally expressed in the interviews complemented the visual data and allowed residents to produce new information (such as the context in which the photograph was taken). This would not have occurred without the assistance of the photographic material. In addition, the photo albums aided communication between the residents and myself as the photo albums refreshed memories and helped to reduce misunderstanding (cf. Collier and Collier 1986).

Whilst photographs submitted by the residents were self-directed and therefore varied, all interview questions addressed a series of general topics relating to Millers and Dawes Points. These general interview topics included residential duration, reasons for choosing to reside in the area, the controversial Barangaroo development, social housing sell offs and social interactions between tenure types (the interview schedule ‘skeleton’ is included in Appendix XII). In order to draw out more specific views about local issues, interviews were also customised to the specific area and residence type of the interviewee.

3.7.2 Secondary data analysis To complement the array of primary sources collected for this research (including data generated through the use of surveys, in-depth interviews, auto-photography and participant observation) secondary sources were also used for analysis. Secondary data analysis involves working with data that has been collected by others for ‘additional’ analysis (Phillips 2013, 178). There are several clear advantages to working with secondary sources. For example, it is an efficient method of data collection because the information is readily available and is also usually organised in some manner (Johnston 2000). These factors mean that secondary sources are often more cost efficient and also allow acceleration of the research process (Vartanian 2010). Because secondary sources may cover a long period of time, they also make past populations more accessible (Punch 2005).

Vartanian (2010, 3) has described that secondary data ‘include any data that are examined to answer a research question other than the question(s) for which the data were initially collected’. For this thesis, the secondary sources included:  Newspaper articles  Historical accounts of the Millers and Dawes Points areas  Media releases

 Planning documents; and  Other websites

Although some of these sources may not strictly be considered as secondary resources (such as newspapers), these materials have been interpreted for a purpose other than which was originally intended. Thus, they have been read as a secondary resource for this research. Please refer to Table 3.4 for more information on the collection of these materials. Table 3.4: Secondary source research scope. Secondary source Scope of research Newspaper articles I used the online resource ‘factiva’ which has catalogued online versions of Sydney based newspapers dating back to 1987. I searched factiva for every newspaper article that mentioned keywords including ‘Millers Point’, ‘Dawes Pont’, ‘Walsh Bay’ and/or ‘Barangaroo’ from 1987 to the time the search was being conducted (mid 2009). To keep up to date with the events that occurring during the course of my research, I activated ‘Google alerts’. Each time an online newspaper mentioned any of the keywords listed above, I received an email with a link to the newspaper article. Historical accounts of the A key source were the books which documented the histories of Millers and Dawes Points Millers and Dawes Points12. Other accounts included histories areas documented by governments13 and development companies14, which were fact checked. Media releases An assortment of media releases were collected from agencies such as Housing NSW, the Independent Commission Against Corruption, Lend Lease, NSW Housing Ministers and Government. Google alerts were able to keep me informed of these releases until thesis submission.

Planning documents Planning documents were most relevant for the Barangaroo and Walsh Bay developments. Thus, document collection focussed on the development periods for these projects: 1980 to 2007 for Walsh Bay and 2000 until thesis submission for Barangaroo.

12 Including: Fitzgerald, S. & Keating, C. 1991, Millers Point: The urban village. Sydney: Hale and Iremonger and Fitzgerald, S. & Keating, C. 2009, Millers Point: The urban village. Second Edition. Sydney: Halstead Press. 13 Such as ‘Housing NSW. 2007, Millers Point Oral History Project: Summary Report, accessed 4 March 2009, www.housing.nsw.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/B4A06A4B-5976-4824- 90E3.../0/MillersPointOralHistoryProjectSummaryReport.pdf’ and ‘Housing NSW. 2007, Millers Point: A brief history, Sydney. accessed 7 April 2009, www.housing.nsw.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/DACBDD25-5410-4027-9441- F35316230CE3/0/CMGMillersPointVol1.pdf’. 14 See ‘Walsh Bay Partnership. 2003, Walsh Bay: Harbourside renaissance. Victoria: Hardie Grant Publishing’. 68

The secondary sources collected for this thesis were varied in type, content and date published. A variety of materials were collected and spanned in time from the Aboriginal occupation of Millers and Dawes Points to the present. As such, it was important to create an archive that not only stored all this information, but made the information easily accessible and identifiable. Because all the secondary sources collected were in digital format, I was able to store all the information on my computer, making the filing system essential in creating an effective and efficient archive. Figure 3.2 below provides an example of how the information was stored in folders. The main folders were divided by location such as ‘Millers and Dawes Points’,’ Barangaroo’, and ‘Walsh Bay’. Within these main folders, sub- folders were created which were based on the topics covered in this thesis. For example, within the ‘Millers and Dawes Points’ folder, a sub-folder was created for the social housing sell offs. Within the ‘Sell off’ folder, I placed all relevant newspaper articles, media releases and local newsletters. This same process occurred for other locations including Barangaroo and Walsh Bay.

Figure 3.2: A diagrammatical representation of the archival system used for this thesis. Folders are mainly divided by location. Within these main folders, sub-folders were created based on the topics covered within this thesis.

A significant feature of this archive was that the titles of the documents detailed the dates the articles were published. These date specific titles allowed for easy reference. In addition, all secondary sources collected for this thesis were entered into the referencing software program ‘EndNote X4’®. This referencing system gave each resource a unique identification number and ensured that details such as the URL and access dates of websites were recorded and later referred to for the compilation of the bibliography.

3.7.3 Triangulation Triangulation is traditionally used for mixed method approaches to data generations and is particularly useful for case study investigations (Snow and Anderson 1991; Hoggart, Lees and Davies 2002). Triangulation enables the use of more than one method ‘to increase the validity of results and to synthesise results from different sources’ (Alston and Bowles 2003, 137). As all methodologies are flawed in some way (Snow and Anderson 1991), triangulation allows varying datasets to be combined and crosschecked with each other (Bryman 2008) so that biases inherent in any single method are kept to a minimum (Seale 1999). Any personal biases are also reduced as results are continuously reflected upon (Seale 1999). Triangulation therefore allows for the most prominent issues to appear and be separated from underlying issues. Thus, triangulation facilitated the compilation of a more comprehensive analysis for this research.

To triangulate the data, I crosschecked research from the surveys, social history chapter, auto- photography, in-depth interviewing, secondary sources and participant observation, rather than analysing the results of each methodology independently. By crosschecking these methodologies, a series of ‘mutually reinforcing’ conclusions emerged that strengthened the validity of the research (Bryman 2008). For example, the narratives surrounding the sales of social housing appeared in all five research methodologies, which reinforced the prominence and credibility of the issue. Triangulation also allowed a means of exposing contradictory data (Gray 2003), where different residents from the same cohort expressed different views, which I then explored in more detail. This system of crosschecking allowed themes and concepts from my research to be teased out and built upon.

3.8 Positionality and reflexivity Ekinsmyth (2002) has noted that researchers have an intrinsically more powerful position to their research subjects and should search for means to reduce or remove unequal power relations. In my mixed methods approach to data generations I attempted to remain cognisant of my positionality thorough all stages of the research. By deploying varying types of methodologies, I attempted to minimise my power position to allow the residents of the traditional and new communities to participate in defining the trajectory of my research. For example, as I was already familiar with the sales of social housing through various media commentaries, I was at risk of over emphasising this issue at the expense of other less reported issues only known by local residents. However, residents of both the traditional and 70 new communities repeatedly raised the issue of the social housing sales through multiple methods, which confirmed that it was a notable and prominent issue.

England (2006, 289) has observed ‘positionality is about how people view the world from different embodied locations’. It was important to remember that I was initially drawn to the case study of Millers and Dawes Points because I empathised with the social housing residents who appeared to be victims of global neo-liberal and bureaucratic processes. While it would have been easy to have focussed on their stories alone, by listening to alternative viewpoints (largely from some residents of the new community and the government), I gained a greater understanding of the complexity of the processes occurring in place. For example, while members of the traditional community have forged long-term close connections to Millers and Dawes Points, residents of the new community have also developed attachments to the area (as is discussed in Chapter 5).

I continuously reflected on my research, modifying and evolving the methodologies where appropriate. For example, while presenting my research to Millers and Dawes Points’ residents during the Resident Action Group meetings (as discussed in Section 3.3.1), reactions were mixed and I met some resistance to being researched, again. One resident stated there was no difference between my research and the Millers Point Oral History Project conducted by Housing NSW (2007b). I encountered other similar views while distributing the survey instrument with residents I encountered outside their homes. Such reactions led me to think carefully about my approach, as I was clearly an ‘outsider’ (‘outsiders’ are discussed in further detail in Chapter 5, Section 5.2.4.1). This was exemplified by the return of seven blank surveys, which appeared to be a form of protest.

The majority of people I encountered were, however, appreciative of the work I was conducting as I received many positive responses from the community. When I presented the details of my research at the Resident Action Group meetings (as discussed in Section 3.3.1), many residents gave me their contact details for participation. I also had many conversations with residents while in the field who were very receptive to the investigations and promised to spread word of the research to the wider community.

I modified the methodologies used in the research to best accommodate residents from both communities. I added an auto-photographic method to engage with residents in ways that 71 surveys alone would have allowed. Thus, the evolving morphology of my mixed methods approach enabled the capturing of more voices and understandings from varied perspectives.

It was essential that I acknowledged the power relations inherent in the methodologies I engaged with (England 2006). During the research process, I sought to avoid or reduce the use of ‘authority, privilege, dominant voices and silences’ in the research process (Ekinsmyth 2002, 180). For example, the various methodologies used in this thesis allowed me to engage with residents in ways they were most comfortable. Some residents were willing to express their views through anonymous surveys while others felt that in-depth interviews were the best way to further express themselves. By allowing residents equal opportunities to communicate with me in a variety of ways, I engaged with a broad cross section of residents. Therefore, I did not subconsciously target and over emphasise the views of one socio- economic cohort over another. While acknowledging the researcher privilege in this process, I attempted to empower the respondents by handing some control of the research process over to them. For example, the process of using auto-photography to empower residents is explained in the following section.

3.8.1 Power relations in auto-photography and in-depth interviewing Ziller (1990) has observed that auto-photography is a reflexive methodology that enables the world to be seen through somebody else’s eyes. Consequently, auto-photography was beneficial for diminishing the power laden process that commonly haunts in-depth interviewing methods (Clark-Ibanez 2004). For this thesis, placing a camera in the hands of the residents meant that they had direct control over which images to present and discuss. Therefore, residents drove an aspect of data generation for this thesis. The residents’ photographs also provided a sense of familiarity and a point of focus that lessened the awkwardness during interviewing (Clark-Ibanez 2004). For example, by concentrating on an image already familiar to the residents, the photographs served as a prompt for respondents to discuss ideas and concepts they had previously considered.

In the early stages of in-depth interviewing it became clear that perceptions of the boundaries of the local suburbs, such as Millers Point, Dawes Point, Walsh Bay, Barangaroo and The Rocks differed. While my understandings of suburb boundaries had been informed by both historical and present maps of the area (compiled for the social history in Chapter 4), local knowledge or experiences living in the area clearly played a part in the construction of 72 boundaries. To accommodate these differences, I provided maps and asked residents to draw where they believed to be the boundaries of Millers Point, Dawes Point and Walsh Bay (as previously discussed in Section 3.3.2), at the start of each in-depth interviews (if they believed there were boundaries that separated the locations within the area). This mapping technique provided impetus for further discussion about suburb boundaries and the politics of difference around these. It also reduced the potential for miscommunication about suburb boundaries.

3.8.1.1 Positionality in the interview setting To accommodate for the unequal power relations between researcher and resident, I chose interview locations strategically. While scheduling interviews with residents, I invited respondents to suggest the interview location. This meant that the interviews would most likely be held somewhere convenient and comfortable for the resident. As a result, interview locations ranged from local cafés and pubs to the residents’ own home (or in some cases the ‘study room’ provided by their apartment complex)15. This method enabled me to make observations and generate more detailed analyses than would have otherwise occurred with other, more formal or more removed interview techniques, such as over the telephone (Elwood and Martin 2000). The range of interview locations also allowed me to learn what Elwood and Martin (2000, 653) referred to as the ‘social geographies of a community’. Through the interview locations, residents could demonstrate how they interacted with their local area and identify the aspects of their environment they considered important. For example, residents pointed out buildings they considered significant to the history of Millers and Dawes Points and other locations that emphasised the attributes of their suburbs. This was particularly the case for interviews conducted within bars (‘pubs’), where residents aimed to convey the unique community atmosphere of Millers and Dawes Points through the interview setting. Therefore, by enabling residents to choose the interview location, I was able to gain insights to ‘essential community histories and values’ (Elwood and Martin 2000, 653).

As I am a ‘white, middle-class’ female researcher, who does not own property nor pay rent for accommodation, I did not fall into either of the extreme ranges of socio-economic categories of residents interviewed. As a result, different interview settings reinforced my

15 One interview was conducted over the telephone. Otherwise, all interviews were conducted within Sydney’s inner city. 73 feelings of empowerment and disempowerment, depending on the residents’ socio-economic status. In some instances where the interview was conducted within the participant’s own home, I was often overwhelmed by the grandeur and overt affluence, which sometimes left me feeling awkward and displaced. And through my awkwardness it was possible that the inherent power relations between the respondent and myself could have been more evenly levelled out or indeed, reversed.

England (2006, 288) has warned researchers to ‘avoid exploiting less powerful people as mere sources of data’. Thus, when interviewing social housing residents I remained cognisant of the vast disparity between resident tenures (including my own) but also cautious not to exploit them. To avoid empowering myself during interviews with social housing residents, I was careful not to bring in society’s prejudice against social housing tenure (or patronising sympathies to their living condition). One social housing resident reflected on my own positionality within the research:

‘It’s great there’s people like yourself that are interested and going to get it down on paper and you’ve got nothing to do with the government, big business and media. You’re a party that’s away from each of them ... and also just because we’ve said it, you’re not going to write it down as sympathising with us because you’ve got to have that level of seeing it from both sides’ (Respondent #1216, 25 March 2011).

In this scenario, while research might be confronting to some ‘disadvantaged’ residents, this resident acknowledged my ‘impartiality’. This indicated to me that I was not creating a sense of disempowerment for this respondent during this in-depth interview, which I hoped was replicated with all interviews.

3.9 Conclusion This chapter has outlined the methodological approaches used to generate data for this geographical case study of Millers and Dawes Points. By generating data, I gained a clearer understanding about the historical events that have helped shape Millers and Dawes Points as the suburbs stand today. To present an impartial narrative of Millers and Dawes Points residents’ struggles for space over time (Aim 1 of this thesis), I have documented a

16 Please refer to Appendix 1 (Table 1) to view the socio-economic attributes of Respondent #12. 74 contextualised social history of place by using primary and secondary resources. In order to understand how residents constructed their senses of place (Aim 2 of this thesis), I deployed a survey instrument, which was distributed to all residents in Millers and Dawes Points and conducted in-depth interviews. To gain insights into how the traditional community responded to the territorial efforts of both the government and the new community (Aims 3, 3.1 and 3.2 of this thesis), the data generated from the survey instrument and in-depth interviews were used. While auto-photography was not used to address any specific aim of this thesis, the methodology was useful for complementing the survey and in-depth interviewing data. The data presented to me through auto-photography enabled me to gain a visual dimension to how residents perceived, understood and interpreted their local environment.

The data generated from six questions within the survey instrument were coded, quantified and analysed for percentages. The results of this analysis were translated into graphs, which are presented throughout this thesis. In-depth interviews and secondary data analysis were also used to gain greater insights for all the aims in this thesis. The results from all methods of data gathering have been crosschecked with each other using ‘triangulation’ to strengthen the validity of this research. By using triangulation, I was able to piece together and build stronger narratives about how residents constructed their senses of place as well as how they responded to the territorial actions of the government and new community.

In this chapter, I have also described my own positionality for conducting data generations within this thesis. My positionality sought to develop methodologies that were reflexive to better conceptualise the effects of territorialisation on the traditional and new communities. In particular, I used an auto-photographic methodology to empower the residents and allow them to drive an aspect of data generations.

The following chapter provides a social history of Millers and Dawes Points, which traces the origins of the area beginning with Aboriginal occupation to its present global city status. I document how Millers and Dawes Points became known as Sydney’s own ‘urban village’ and how this residential hub has changed due to gentrification cycles.

Chapter 4 – THE SOCIAL HISTORIES OF MILLERS AND DAWES POINTS: THE MAKING OF SYDNEY’S ‘URBAN VILLAGE’

4.1 Introduction This chapter presents a social history of the suburbs of Millers and Dawes Points. The aim of this chapter is to trace the evolving tensions over space that have occurred within these two suburbs primarily since colonial times. However, it is important to recognise the original Indigenous owners of the land and their contribution to this history of place prior to British settlement. Although Sydney’s transformation into a global city is a noteworthy part of Millers and Dawes Points’ history, this chapter is also focussed on the outcomes of localised social and economic processes in place. In this chapter, I chart the narratives of struggles and resistance that are vital to understanding the outcomes of these processes. In particular, I concentrate on how these narratives have fostered a sense of community amongst its residents, which have contributed to the area’s ‘urban village’ label.

To provide context to this thesis, this chapter traces the changes to Millers and Dawes Points’ physical, social and cultural landscapes, from pre-colonial Aboriginal occupation to the present day. This includes the area’s development from a colonial settlement to a (post- )colonial city. However, this development has not proceeded in a straightforward manner as Millers and Dawes Points has been a site of ongoing struggle for territory. The site’s first documented struggle was between the local Indigenous people and the newly arrived British population who wanted to use the land as a convict settlement. Over time, Millers and Dawes Points transformed into a maritime town, but its occupants struggled to cope with the outbreak of disease and the economic fluctuations. I describe how these challenges helped to forge a cohesive community, which resulted in the ‘urban village’ characterisation that exists to this day (Fitzgerald and Keating 2009). I continue with a discussion about how Millers and Dawes Points’ transformation from an industrial landscape to a (post-)industrial one has been propelled by gentrification. I detail how both production and consumption processes of gentrification have brought a series of changes that have threatened the ‘urban village’ character of the area, namely new commercial and residential developments. Local residents

76 have responded to these threats by ‘pulling’ together as a community to protect territory they perceived as their own.

4.2 Aboriginal occupation The first documented battle for Millers and Dawes Points’ territory was between the British and the Indigenous Cadigal people who resided in the area for at least 14 500 years before European colonisation (Galloway 2005). During Aboriginal occupation, Millers and Dawes Points were originally given the placenames of ‘Coodye’ and ‘Tarra’ respectively (Darug Tribal Aboriginal Corporation 2009). Following British arrival in Sydney in 1788, Aboriginal populations were nearly eradicated, however, the local Cadigal people did not simply disappear but continued to occupy the area in various waves of resistance against exploitation and violence (Karskens 1997). Those who did survive the wars and the onset of introduced diseases by the colonisers have been documented to have lived in the area for approximately 40 years following the arrival of the first fleet. Some were employed in the local maritime industry and may have descendents living today (Galloway 2005).

4.3 Colonial settlement: 1788-1900 Following Aboriginal occupation, British colonisers used Millers and Dawes Points in ways that proved to be instrumental in shaping the character of the suburbs today. Sydney was colonised in 1788 for the purposes of expanding the British Empire and to establish a new convict settlement (Keneally 2009). Upon the arrival of the First Fleet, the area now known as The Rocks1 was favoured for convict settlement because Millers and Dawes Points’ terrain was considered too steep and rocky, and therefore, too difficult to access (see Figure 4.1) (Galloway 2005).

1 The Rocks’ original name was ‘Warrang’ as given by the Cadigal people (Ashton and Waterson 2000). 77

A vital part of Millers and Dawes Points’ history was its transformation from a convict settlement into a maritime and commercial town. This transformation is depicted in Figure 4.2, which shows how Millers and Dawes Points became part of a larger Colonial settlement. By the 1820s, whaling and sealing industries flourished with trade occurring along Millers and Dawes Points’ wharves. With the establishment of rice and wool industries, Millers and Dawes Points were in need of more working wharves and docks (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991). As a result, the sea trade industry grew as rapidly as the area’s reputation declined. Due to the negative stereotype of the maritime trade, Millers and Dawes Points quickly developed a reputation as an area frequented by sailors, ex-convicts, gangs, thugs and sex workers (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991).

Figure 4.2: Caporn’s map of Sydney in 1836 depicts Millers and Dawes Points as still relatively untouched but growing into a commercial district. I have annotated Caporn’s (1836) map (in red) to provide context and highlight its main features such as the area’s new wharves. Source: (Caporn 1836)

Around the 1830s, Sydney’s thriving maritime industry made Millers and Dawes Points a focal point for Sydney’s economy with many new wharves built along the foreshore (as displayed Figure 4.3). Millers and Dawes Points’ economic success drew many people to the area, and the population increased rapidly (along with the rest of Sydney’s population) over

79 the next decade (Galloway 2005). Due to the highly mobile and casual nature of the maritime industry, housing needed to be provided locally and the newly built properties in the area were rented to the maritime workers or to individuals from other supporting local industries (Fitzgerald and Keating 2009). Because of Millers and Dawes Points’ increasing popularity, more services (such as trades ranging from sail makers to carpenters and blacksmiths) were provided locally (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991). Due to this increase in trade services, the area became close to self-sufficient and was considered as a village separate to the rest of Sydney (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991). This ‘urban village’ character is still relevant to the descendents of the maritime era living within Millers and Dawes Points today (this is further explored in Chapter 5, Section 5.2.4).

Figure 4.3: I have annotated Baron’s (1854) map (in red) to show that the number of working wharves increased along with commercial and residential activities in Millers and Dawes Points and Sydney’s surrounds as compared to Figure 4.2. Source: (Baron 1854)

While Millers and Dawes Points were well established by the 1840s, access was still impeded by its steep and rocky terrain. Access to the area was improved by using convict labour to carve through deep rock to connect Millers and Dawes Points to The Rocks. Thus, the commencement of the ‘Argyle Cut’ began in 1843 (see Figure 4.3) (Toon 1986). The project raised fears amongst local residents of Millers and Dawes Points who expressed apprehension about the direct route to The Rocks, which had an unsavoury reputation because of the

81 prevalence of violence and crime in the area (Toon 1986). Residents anticipated that the Argyle Cut would tarnish their area’s reputation (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991). Nevertheless, the best interests of local merchants took precedence and construction began (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991). Eventually, the project proved too difficult and construction halted when the Cut was only half completed (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991). The Argyle Cut was finally opened in 1859 with the assistance of explosives and council labour (Toon 1986) and became an important transport route for trade and general access (Fitzgerald 2007). Although the Argyle Cut facilitated the accessibility to goods and services, its physical presence has also acted as a barrier, which has separated Millers and Dawes Points from the rest of Sydney’s CBD (this is further explained in Section 4.4).

Towards the end of the 19th Century, the reputation of Millers and Dawes Points continued to plummet. This was largely due to the cultural associations of the maritime industry such as the abundance of brothels and bars (‘pubs’) in the area (Fitzgerald and Keating 2009). In addition, the installation of inadequate maritime infrastructure, such as ineffective sea walls allowed non-native rats and other vermin to enter the area by ship (Galloway 2005). Sydney harbour’s health was also largely ignored, which resulted in poor water quality and floating rubbish (Galloway 2005). These factors that have contributed to the construction of Millers and Dawes Points’ poor reputation is still evident today (this is further discussed in Chapter 5, Section 5.3.1.1).

4.4 (Post-)colonial settlement 1900-1950: The seeds of maritime culture and the traditional community The 1900s brought a raft of changes that influenced the character of Millers and Dawes Points. The outbreak of the bubonic plague that struck Sydney in 1900 killed 103 people out of 303 victims who became infected (Grace 1987). To combat the plague, the government forcibly removed around 2000 people from Sydney to the North Head Quarantine Station, which resulted in major disruptions to Millers and Dawes Points, with work eventually coming to a standstill2 (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991). The City of Sydney Council3 and the NSW state government intervened by passing the Darling Harbour Wharves Resumption Act

2 Prior to the plague striking Sydney, authorities were informed that an outbreak was almost inevitable and subsequent research identified that flea-ridden rats (transported via the shipping industry) carried the disease (Fitzgerald and Keating 2009). However, the Department of Health was not proactive enough in its attempts to prevent the plague, and the disease soon arrived in Sydney (Fitzgerald and Keating 2009). 3 The City of Sydney Council is an elected governing body designed to ‘provide a large scope of commercial, residential, community and cultural services’ at the local level (City of Sydney Council 2013). 82

1900 in March, allowing wharves from Darling Harbour to Circular Quay to be placed under the government’s control (Toon 1986). By taking control of the wharves, the government was able to bring them to international standards and prevent further disease outbreaks from spreading across Sydney (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991).

While the plague provided the government with an excuse to seize control of a significant portion of the foreshore4, the plague was not the government’s primary reason for resuming properties (Fitzgerald and Keating 2009). The government’s primary reason was its newly laid plans for the Sydney Harbour Bridge, which required that portion of the foreshore and more (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991). As a result, the Sydney Harbour Trust and The Rocks Resumption Board were established in 1900 to control the port’s shipping and the updating of facilities (Housing NSW 2007b). During this time, the Sydney Harbour Trust took control of 803 properties including housing, shops, factories and hotels from The Rocks Resumption Board in Millers and Dawes Points (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991). Now in control of most of the properties in Millers and Dawes Points, the Sydney Harbour Trust condemned 71 properties and demolished 24 others they considered substandard (Housing NSW 2007b). These actions left most residents in Millers and Dawes Points without housing (Galloway 2005).

Regardless of the housing resumptions, the maritime industry continued to prosper making Millers and Dawes Points indispensible to Sydney’s maritime industry over the following decade. As a result, the government came under increasing pressure to supply local housing to the maritime workers who were integral to the nation’s economy. In 1901, the City of Sydney Council petitioned the government to rebuild local housing for the maritime workers (Fitzgerald and Keating 2009). Between 1905 to 1917, the Sydney Harbour Trust constructed 106 new dwellings to accommodate waterside workers, whose homes had been previously demolished by the Sydney Harbour Trust (Housing NSW 2007b). These newly constructed properties would later become social housing managed by Housing NSW5. More

4 Millers Point, Dawes Point and The Rocks were one of the areas least affected by the plague as only five people died from the disease in the area (Karskens 2003). 5 Housing NSW was titled ‘Housing Commission of NSW’ when it was first established in 1942 (Housing NSW 2010a). During the 1980s, the Housing Commission of NSW changed its name to the ‘NSW Department of Housing’ (Housing NSW 2010a). In 2008, the ‘NSW Department of Housing’ once again changed its name and became ‘Housing NSW’. For simplicity, I refer to all of these departments by its present name ‘Housing NSW’ (Housing NSW 2010a). 83 housing for maritime workers continued to be built6 until World War One, at which time there was a decline in maritime trade. Overall, the Sydney Harbour Trust demolished more housing than it promised to rebuild, arguing that the land was far too valuable for housing purposes (Fitzgerald and Keating 2009).

During the Depression of the 1930s, hundreds of waterfront workers became jobless (Housing NSW 2007b). Employers took advantage of decreased trade levels and became extremely selective about who they employed. For example, employees were selected using the ‘Bull’ system, which favoured the largest and strongest of men to carry out manual labour on the wharves (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991, 92). Employers also favoured married men, as they were less likely to complain about poor conditions and low pay than their single counterparts who were thought to be less reliant on regular employment (Housing NSW 2007b). Workers despised this system because it put them in competition with each other and it was highly biased in favour of the employers. It was during this period that Hickson Road (located on the western side of Millers and Dawes Points) earned the name ‘The Hungry Mile’ because workers would trudge along each wharf along Hickson Road (a walk roughly one mile long) in search of employment (Housing NSW 2007b). In the event that the workers could not find employment, they would be left hungry.

Regardless of the competition for local employment, Millers and Dawes Points’ local community developed a high level of social cohesion during the Depression, and was known as Sydney’s most ‘close-knit community’ (Housing NSW 2007b, 45). The support offered through neighbourly bonds helped to mitigate the impacts of the periodical nature of work in the trade industry. This community support was delivered in various forms such as the sharing of resources including food or clothing, especially when supplies were scarce (Fitzgerald and Keating 2009). Contributing to the community’s solidarity was the formation of unions such as the ‘Waterside Workers Federation’ in 1902, which successfully fought for improved working conditions and wages for the labourers (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991). The rise of worker unions in Millers and Dawes Points would prove to be significant in honing the existing ‘close-knit’ character of the area in years to come (Galloway 2005).

6 The State Housing Board built the majority of Millers and Dawes Points’ new housing stock (Housing NSW 2007b). The last of the area’s new housing was built by the Sydney Harbour Trust in 1917 (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991). 84

The construction of the Sydney Harbour Bridge during the Depression also proved to be influential in shaping the residential character of Millers and Dawes Points. Its completion in 1932 (along with the demolition of more homes) confirmed earlier suspicions that the government resumed properties during the plague in order to construct the Bridge (see Figure 4.4) (Fitzgerald and Keating 2009). Overall, Millers and Dawes Points lost 300 properties, with plans for more housing demolition in The Rocks to make way for the construction of the Bridge (Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority 2009). The construction of the Sydney Harbour Bridge also created a physical barrier that isolated Millers and Dawes Points from the rest of Sydney resulting in what Fitzgerald and Keating (1991, 96) described as a very ‘inward looking suburb’ contributing to its ‘urban village’ characterisation that remains to this day (this is further discussed in Chapter 5, Section 5.2.4).

Figure 4.4 has been removed due to Copyright restrictions

Figure 4.4: Construction of the Sydney Harbour Bridge in 1932. Construction shows the close proximity of the Sydney Harbour Bridge to housing within Millers and Dawes Points. I have indicated (in red) the physical barrier between two residential areas by the presence of the Bridge. The Sydney Harbour Bridge separated Millers and Dawes Points from the rest of Sydney’s inner city, which contributed to the area’s ‘urban village’ characterisation (Fitzgerald and Keating 2009). Source: (Globe Vista 2011)

Due to a shortage of labour during World War Two, Millers and Dawes Points’ local economy improved. As a result, the ‘Bull’ system was abolished and working conditions for maritime workers were upgraded. Maritime workers no longer needed to reside in Millers and Dawes Points as the new public transport system (including trams and buses) and radio communications meant they could commute from Sydney’s expanding outer suburbs (Fitzgerald and Keating 2009). To accommodate new transport methods in shipping, the government transformed the south western portion of Millers and Dawes Points into a concrete platform to serve as a docking site for container ships (Galloway 2005). The construction of the new container terminal resulted in the loss of more social housing in Millers and Dawes Points in the 1960s (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991). Later the redevelopment of this site, now known as ‘Barangaroo’, would become highly controversial (this is further discussed in Chapter 7).

In the late 1950s, the Cahill Expressway was built to form a vital link between Sydney’s eastern and northern suburbs. There was strong opposition to its construction due to its

85 perceived unpleasant appearance, and because it created a barrier between the city and its waterfront (Davies 2007). For Millers and Dawes Points, the arrangement of both the Cahill Expressway and the Sydney Harbour Bridge created a large physical barrier that has served as ‘cushions’ protecting the area from major redevelopment, as has occurred in other parts of the inner city, namely The Rocks (this is further explained in Chapter 6, Section 6.3.3.1) (Fitzgerald and Keating 2009).

Following the construction of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Maritime Services Board also played a major role in shaping Millers and Dawes Points’ local community, albeit unintentionally. In 1936, the Sydney Harbour Trust’s control of the foreshore (including the newly built wharves and all properties within Millers and Dawes Points) was transferred to the Maritime Services Board. These properties would later become social housing properties owned by Housing NSW. As the Maritime Services Board was primarily concerned with maritime activities, it was reluctant to assume the extra responsibilities associated with maintaining properties and consequently the Board adopted relaxed management practices (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991). One result was that housing tenancies could be passed on through a kinship system where generations of families were able to continually occupy the same home. This tenancy agreement was beneficial for the Maritime Services Board as it caused minimal administrative problems (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991). The community occupying this housing would later become the predecessors of the current residents of the traditional community. Overall, the Maritime Services Board’s laissez faire attitude to management helped Millers and Dawes Points’ community in becoming largely self- regulated as well as tight-knit (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991). This fabric of the community would once again be challenged by the gentrification of Millers and Dawes Points, which is described in the following section.

4.5 Millers and Dawes Points: The beginnings of a gentrification story The 1970s marked a new phase for Millers and Dawes Points as the area was beginning to be impacted by gentrification cycles (see Chapter 2, Section 2.2 for an overview of gentrification literature). In the 1970s, Millers and Dawes Points were impacted by global economic shifts along with the rest of inner Sydney (Horvath and Engels 1985). The economic boom meant that Sydney’s economy no longer relied on port related activities as

86 most shipping traffic was directed to Port Botany7 (Davies 2007). This global economic shift and relocation of most port related activities from Millers and Dawes Points can be viewed as having contributed to the gentrification of the area in line with production based arguments (as discussed in Chapter 2, Section 2.2.3). For example, Millers and Dawes Points’ landscape began to change as the wharves in Walsh Bay closed (Davies 2007) and the remaining western wharves were redeveloped to construct one large container terminal in the 1970s (Galloway 2005). This transformed the entire western portion of Millers and Dawes Points into a large concrete platform now known as ‘Barangaroo’.

The post war boom that began in the 1960s also assisted in gentrifying Millers and Dawes Points. During this time, the government acted as a ‘powerful actor’ to redevelop the inner city (specifically The Rocks area), in part to unlock its value (Holocomb and Beauregard 1981, 69). That is, the government saw the potential economic value that could be gained from redeveloping The Rocks in line with Smith’s (1979) rent gap theory (see Chapter 2, Section 2.2.3 for an explanation of this theory). The NSW government assisted in revalorising8 Millers and Dawes Points, which has also assisted the gentrification process.

In 1963, the government held an international design competition to redesign The Rocks and James Wallace Pty. Ltd. was the successful proposer (James Wallace Pty. Ltd 1964). The proposal included almost complete demolition of The Rocks to pave way for four high-rise commercial buildings and 13 lower-rise residential apartment buildings (see Figure 4.5) (James Wallace Pty. Ltd 1964). The local community rejected the proposal because they believed the proposed high rises were out of character with the local area and because the plans also removed social housing (Morgan 1991).

Figure 4.5 has been removed due to Copyright restrictions

Figure 4.5: The Rocks (located in the foreground) with the proposed redevelopment plan as submitted by James Wallace Pty. Ltd. The original layout of The Rocks is barely recognisable as it is replaced by 17 low to high-rise buildings. The absence of any structures in Millers and Dawes Points (located in the background) suggests that the area was perceived as an ‘empty space’ and of little consequence to The Rocks and the rest of Sydney at this point in time. Source: (James Wallace Pty. Ltd 1964)

7 Port Botany is located 12km from Millers and Dawes Points and contains two container terminals (Sydney Ports Corporation 2012). 8 Revalorisation is the process of reinvesting both time and capital into the built environment resulting in a gentrified neighbourhood (Lees 1994b). 87

The James Wallace design produced enough public outcry for the plans to be shelved (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991). Not to be deterred, the state government established the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority (SCRA)9 in 1971, which was given full planning powers10 (Morgan 1991). The SCRA then hastily released another plan for The Rocks in the same year. The renewed plan also aimed to transform The Rocks into a high earning, high- rise development area but with the preservation of only a few heritage buildings (Manning and Hardman 1975). In addition, the plan aimed to shift control of the area from the government to private investors in the form of 99-year leases. All social housing was again slated for demolition (Manning and Hardman 1975).

With a new redevelopment plan for The Rocks in place, the last obstacle for the government was approximately 250 social housing residents still residing in the area (Roddewig 1978). The SCRA began to increase rents, not perform maintenance duties and in some cases, the SCRA’s employees persuaded elderly residents to leave their ‘run down’ homes (Morgan 1991, 81). However, these tactics were mostly unsuccessful (Morgan 1991). While the SCRA continued its attempts to remove residents from their homes11, resident action groups were forming. Such activities were to become part of an entirely new social phenomenon12 for Sydney, which was a social movement known as the ‘Green Bans13’. ‘Green Bans’ describe environmental unionism movements that aim to protect the physical, social and cultural fabric of the environment (Roddewig 1978). These Green Bans helped to build a culture of resistance to local redevelopment in the area, which is further explored in the following section.

9 Through the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority Act 1968 (Roddewig 1978). 10 Through the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority Act 1968, the SCRA was given statutory powers that superseded those of the City of Sydney Council and the State Planning Authority (Manning and Hardman 1975). Thus, the SCRA’s actions only required approval from the Minister for Local Government (Manning and Hardman 1975). 11 For example, SCRA employees visited social housing residents’ homes requesting tenants to complete rehousing application forms. The SCRA’s employees led residents to believe that they were representatives from the Housing Commission (and not from the SCRA) who were recommending residents relocate from the area (Morgan 1991). In addition, in 1971, the SCRA began to serve eviction notices to a group of social housing residents in The Rocks (Mundey 1981). 12 The Rocks was not the only suburb primed for development by authorities. The Green Ban placed at The Rocks was the third Green Ban to have occurred in Sydney (Roddewig 1978). 13 The term ‘Green Bans’ is derived from the title ‘Black Bans’ that occur when strike action takes place to protect the economic interests of the strikers (Roddewig 1978). 88

4.5.1 Trade union action and the Green Bans When the state government disclosed another new plan for the redevelopment of The Rocks in the late 1970s, residents mobilised to defend their territory. The most prominent group was The Rocks Resident Action Group (RRAG) under the leadership of a local social housing resident, Nita McRae14 (Morgan 1991). The action groups engaged in a battle to preserve the local community and its heritage architecture from redevelopment (Bennett 1993). After a series of protests that were ignored by the government, the RRAG approached the NSW Builders Labourers’ Union for support (Karskens 2003). In November 1971, while working on the redevelopment project, the NSW Builders Labourers’ Union sided with the RRAG arguing that demolition should cease (Manning and Hardman 1975). As a result, a Green Ban was imposed for two years (Mundey 1981) suspending the A$500 million project (Manning and Hardman 1975). The Green Ban gained more momentum with support from other unions including the Bulldozer’s Operators Union, Federated Engine Drivers’ and Firemen’s Association, the Waterside Workers’ Federation, the Amalgamated Metal Workers’ Union, Firemen’s and Deckhands’ Union and the Building Workers’ Industrial Union (Manning and Hardman 1975).

With increasing support from residents and unions alike, a total Green Ban was placed on the area. However, the SCRA was unrelenting in its pursuit to redevelop The Rocks and turned to non-union labour to complete the demolition15. According to Shaw (1996) what occurred next was one of the biggest confrontations in the history of Green Bans. In October 1973, non-union labour arrived at Playfair Street, The Rocks, to demolish a strip of old housing for a five-storey apartment building (Shaw 1996). On arrival, they were confronted with protesting local residents, union members and the wider community. Conflict soon arose between the protestors and police and 77 arrests were made (Shaw 1996). The Playfair protests were ‘just one of the large number of separate actions that, together, saved The Rocks’ (Mundey 1981, 3). However, the media coverage of the Playfair protests strengthened support for the RRAG and the SCRA were finally overpowered (Mundey 1981). In 1975, the SCRA conceded to public pressures and offered a compromise that would finally lift the Green Ban: all buildings north of the Cahill Expressway were to be retained and restored (Mundey 1981). These battles over territory strengthened the community spirit and

14 Nita McRae was a long time resident of The Rocks who was able to trace her familial history back to the early European settlers (Shaw 1996). 15 Non-union labour is also commonly referred to as ‘scab’ labour, referring to the widespread distaste non- unionised labour received (Fitzgerald and Keating 2009, 100). 89 propagated the tough working-class character of local residents in Millers Point, Dawes Point and The Rocks (Fitzgerald and Keating 2009). The protests also set precedent for the longevity and importance of social housing in this area of Sydney and its support by trade unions and the wider Sydney community.

4.6 Further development in Millers and Dawes Points The City of Sydney Council’s decision to designate Millers and Dawes Points as a residential precinct in 1971 was largely responsible for protecting Millers and Dawes Points from redevelopment (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991). This designation protected most buildings in the area from demolition16 (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991). However, the effects of the redevelopment did not miss Millers and Dawes Points entirely. For example, despite local resident protests, demolitions occurred in Merriman Street and Munn Street with high-rise buildings appearing on these sites (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991).

During the 1960s, Millers and Dawes Points’ residents experienced the first site specific challenge to their suburbs’ collective identity. Most notable of these early challenges was the struggle to retain the suburb name ‘Millers Point’ as opposed to the increasingly popular title ‘West Rocks’, which was imposed by the SCRA (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991). The attempt to change the suburb name from Millers Point to West Rocks continued for almost two decades and appeared to be finalised when in 1976, the City of Sydney Council released a publication titled ‘West Rocks’, which was a document of proposed redevelopment plans for Millers and Dawes Points (see Figure 4.6) (City Planning and Building Dept and Council of the City of Sydney 1976). Other examples included an attempt to remove the Millers Point Post Office, and buses that travelled to Millers Point were labelled as terminating at ‘The Rocks’ (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991). Local residents of Millers and Dawes Points were proud of their suburbs’ unique history and resisted attempts to merge their local area with The Rocks (Fitzgerald and Keating 2009). Local residents successfully began protesting against the title of ‘West Rocks’ (Fitzgerald and Keating 2009). The renaming would have realigned the area with a planned new image but this did not fit with the existing character of the area nor with the residents at that time (Housing NSW 2007c).

Figure 4.6 has been removed due to Copyright restrictions

16 The City of Sydney Council mainly selected 19th Century buildings for preservation but also included the Walsh Bay wharves and the Post Office (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991). 90

Figure 4.6: Publication released by the City of Sydney Council regarding plans for Millers and Dawes Points. While Millers and Dawes Points are labelled on the map, they are not considered as suburbs and are clearly outlined within the precinct of ‘West Rocks’. Source: (City Planning and Building Dept and Council of the City of Sydney 1976)

The economic boom continued into the 1980s and placed Millers and Dawes Points under further pressures. With most of the maritime industry vacated from the area17, Millers and Dawes Points’ residents struggled to cope with their loss of purpose and associated maritime identity. During this time, a burgeoning tourism industry also threatened Millers and Dawes Points’ future as a residential precinct (Annable 2004). In 1989, local media reported that Millers and Dawes Points’ residents feared an expansion of The Rocks tourism industry into their suburbs (O'Brien and Totaro 1989). Residents (who had strongly dissociated themselves from The Rocks) feared that the introduction of tourism into Millers and Dawes Points would fundamentally alter the existing character of the suburb, as one resident stated: ‘The Rocks is finished [as a community] but we don’t intend to lose this [Millers and Dawes Points]’ (O'Brien and Totaro 1989, 82). However, another threat was looming because of a change in administration of housing provision in Millers and Dawes Points.

4.6.1 Transfer of housing responsibilities In 1983, the Efficiency Audit Division of the Public Services decided that the Maritime Services Board should strip itself of the responsibility of all but port related activities (Housing NSW 2007c). This meant that all residential properties in Millers and Dawes Points owned by the Maritime Services Board would now fall under the management of Housing NSW and become part of its social housing stock (Housing NSW 2007c). This transfer of publically owned properties occurred over four years (Housing NSW 2007b). Housing NSW (2007c) claimed that the major benefit of this transfer was that it would carry out repairs to housing that had been neglected by the Maritime Services Board. However, many residents were unhappy about the takeover as tenancy requirements also underwent a complete overhaul (Fitzgerald and Keating 2009). Under the jurisdiction of the Maritime Services Board, tenancy was based on kinship unlike Housing NSW, which had a different system. Housing NSW kept a social housing register that was based on need and eligibility (eligibility for social housing is further discussed in Chapter 6, Section 6.2.1) (Housing NSW

17 The maritime industry has largely been relocated from Millers and Dawes Points to Port Botany (located 12km from Millers and Dawes Points) for container transport (Annable 2004). 91

2013a). This new register heralded the end of generational entitlements to housing. Housing NSW’ new management style therefore threatened the existing dynastic hold on social housing, which represented one of the most serious threats to the ongoing local character established by generations of working-class families. Local residents also feared the influx of ‘low income families, some with drug and alcohol problems’ who would not have the same interests in maintaining their homes (Housing NSW 2007b, 29). These new arrivals would not have the same connections with the local community (Housing NSW 2007b).

Then in 1988, the newly elected Liberal government decided that certain public assets would receive greater economic return if they were transferred to the private market (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991). The effects of these changes in Millers and Dawes Points were that two government owned hotels (The Hero of Waterloo Hotel and the Harbour View Hotel) were sold to the private market. The impending sale quickly prompted protests from local residents. The hotels eventually passed into private hands, however, permanent conservation orders were placed on the buildings, which prevented their redevelopment (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991). The sell-off earned Housing NSW a reprimand from the NSW Heritage Council18, which formally requested consultation for any future sales of properties with heritage significance (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991).

In the following year, the sell-off of public property continued and the main strip of commercial properties19 in Millers and Dawes Points (and the flats/condominiums above them) were advertised in the private real estate market as ‘The Pearl of The Rocks’ (Totaro 1989, 2). Local residents were opposed to the freehold sales of these social housing properties and were by now well rehearsed in residential activism. They immediately began protesting to the state government by arguing that the social and historical integrity of the whole area was under threat by the sell-off of government owned buildings (Totaro 1989). The dispute ended when local residents joined forces with the City of Sydney Council and the

18 The NSW Heritage Council ‘makes decisions about the care and protection of heritage places and items that have been identified as being significant to the people of NSW’ (Office of Environment and Heritage NSW 2012). 19 These properties were considered the ‘commercial centre’ of Millers and Dawes Points adding to character of the ‘urban village’ (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991, 114). They included small grocery shops, a fish shop, the local chemist, doctor’s surgery, butcher and a self-service laundry (Totaro 1989). 92

Building Trades Group20 and together threatened another Green Ban (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991).

4.7 Gentrifying Walsh Bay The preserved residential precinct in Millers and Dawes Points, including Walsh Bay (see Figure 4.7) that exists today can be attributed to the actions of Housing NSW as it commissioned a heritage survey (in 1986) along with a conservation study (in 1987). Housing NSW decided that, as with the wharves at Walsh Bay, all of Millers and Dawes Points should be retained ‘as a cohesive example of nineteenth and early twentieth century townscape’ (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991, 113). In 1986, the City of Sydney Council also conducted its own studies of the area, resulting in a Draft Local Environment Plan which designated most of Millers and Dawes Points as a ‘Conservation Area’ (Fitzgerald and Keating 1991). By 1988, the Millers Point Conservation Area was endorsed as an item of state significance by the NSW Heritage Council (Office of Environment and Heritage NSW 2009). Today, the Millers and Dawes Points Precinct, Millers Point Conservation Area and the Walsh Bay Wharves Precinct are all listed on the State Heritage Register21 (Office of Environment and Heritage NSW 2009).

Figure 4.7 has been removed due to Copyright restrictions

Figure 4.7: The Walsh Bay precinct highlighted in red and located within Millers and Dawes Points. Source: (Google Earth 7.0 2013e)

As the 1970s approached, inner Sydney was experiencing a downturn in the industrial sector and an increase in white-collar occupations, specifically in the finance industry (Morgan 1987). Consequently, the Walsh Bay wharves became defunct. In the early 1980s, the Maritime Services Board recognised the wharves’ deteriorating and unused state and planned to convert the old timber wharves into modern container handling wharves (NSW Audit Office 1998). However, the state government had alternate plans for the area and in 1986 intervened with the decision to restore and revitalise ‘a unique harbour side community offering world-class commercial, residential and cultural facilities within walking distance of the city of Sydney, the Opera House and many other attractions (Parliament of New South

20 The Building Trades Group included Building Workers’ Industrial Union and the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association (Totaro 1989). 21 All of Millers and Dawes Points’ buildings owned by Housing NSW have state heritage significance for their historic, social and architectural importance (Housing NSW 2007c). 93

Wales 1999). At this point, production side theories of gentrification can be seen to have contributed to the gentrification of Millers and Dawes Points. For example, the state government become a ‘powerful actor’ due to its role in revalorising the site with a focus on cultural purposes (Holocomb and Beauregard 1981, 69). With the state government having identified the new real-estate value of the unused wharves, Smith’s (1979) ‘rent gap’ once again came into play. The state government planned to redevelop the site for the service industry to receive financial profits in return.

By 1989, the state government decided that Walsh Bay would be best used for a combination of ‘residential, commercial, cultural and leisure/entertainment uses to create diversity and interest and encourage a broad cross section of the community to visit the area’ (NSW Audit Office 1998). With a Regional Environmental Plan in place, the state government set up the Walsh Bay Assessment Panel to receive redevelopment tenders from the private sector. Redevelopment tenders needed to take into account that the Walsh Bay redevelopment area was placed on a Permanent Conservation Order under a Regional Environmental Plan in 1988 (NSW Audit Office 1998). These measures ensured that the heritage significance of the area could not be compromised, as any redevelopment plan would require the authorisation of the NSW Heritage Council and the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning22 (NSW Audit Office 1998). After two failed tendering attempts in the early 1990s23, the Walsh Bay Assessment Panel put out an international call for expressions of interest once again in 1994 and Walsh Bay Properties24 was chosen as the preferred tender for redevelopment.

After the tender process, Walsh Bay Properties conducted investigations, and judged the conditions of the wharves to be worse than originally thought. The wharves had been subject to vandalism, fire and termites. The sea wall that was used to keep out rats during the maritime period had a build-up of mud, which created the ideal habitat for termites to build nests along the wharves (Walsh Bay Partnership 2003). This created a significant heritage- related problem as many of the 4000 timber piles needed to be replaced (Walsh Bay

22 The Department of Urban Affairs and Planning has been retitled the ‘NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure’ and is responsible for managing sustainable growth in NSW (Department of Planning and Infrastructure 2012). 23 After allegations of irregular tendering by CRI Ltd, an enquiry was held by the Independent Commission Against Corruption that found no corruption and thus redevelopment plans were indefinitely postponed (Brown 1992). It is believed that Ipoh Garden withdrew their tender in 1991 due to government departments and authorities arguing over the control of the Walsh Bay redevelopment project (Brown 1992). 24 Walsh Bay Properties was a collaboration of Transfield and private developer Jose de la Vega (Walsh Bay Partnership 2003). 94

Partnership 2003). Walsh Bay Properties acquired monetary assistance from the state government to complete the project and in 1996, Walsh Bay Properties collaborated with Mirvac Pty Ltd25 to complete the project, forming the Walsh Bay Partnership (NSW Audit Office 1998).

The Walsh Bay Partnership released a new plan that involved dismantling, reconstructing and refurbishing approximately 70 percent of the wharves, as well as the demolition of one wharf (Walsh Bay Partnership 2003). However, the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure did not approve these plans because the proposal diminished the heritage value of the site (Walsh Bay Partnership 2003). By this point, it seemed impossible to balance the heritage value of the wharves with a financially viable solution. To solve this issue, the government sought further advice from international architect expert Philippe Robert26 (Susskind 1997). As a result, a new plan emerged that combined plans by Philippe Robert, the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure, and the NSW Heritage Council, which gained final approval in 1998 (Walsh Bay Partnership 2003). However, The National Trust did not support the final redevelopment plans and raised its concerns over the wharves’ heritage significance. The National Trust argued that no wharves should be demolished as the integrity of Walsh Bay would be diminished if excessive amounts of its fabric were destroyed (Susskind 1998). In order to prevent redevelopment, in February 1999 The National Trust requested the Land and Environment Court to invalidate the NSW Heritage Council’s decision to destroy the wharves (O'Brien 1999). Several months later, the Walsh Bay Development (Special Provisions) Act 1999 overrode The National Trust’s court challenge, ending the 15 year Walsh Bay wharf redevelopment saga (O'Brien and Doherty 1999).

In place of a set of redundant wharves with large heritage value, the redevelopment was designed to integrate contemporary commercial designs with the industrial character of the existing buildings. A new commercial, retail and residential precinct was constructed. Pier one contains a luxury hotel, pier two/three is owned by the NSW state government and is used for cultural and exhibition purposes. Pier four/five hosts the Sydney Theatre Company,

25 Mirvac Pty Ltd is ‘is one of the leading brands in the Australian development and construction industry’ (Mirvac 2013). 26 Philippe Robert is a French architectural expert on adapting historic sites to modern uses (Susskind 1997). 95

Sydney Dance Company and Bangarra Dance Theatre27. Pier six/seven contains 239 exclusive residential apartments. The last pier (pier eight/nine) is used for commercial offices. The shore sheds (shore two/three) that lie perpendicular to the piers were converted into waterfront retail and commercial areas as well as residential spaces. The A$650 million Walsh Bay redevelopment project was completed in 2004 and has since earned more than 60 recognised Australian and International Property Industry awards, including awards from the National Trust28 (Transfield 2008). Figure 4.8 depicts the Walsh Bay redevelopment as it appears today.

This push to transform a redundant industrial precinct into a suite of new apartment developments provides an entry point to the neoliberal priorities of the NSW state government. The government has acted in the interest of real estate developers to introduce policies that have permitted the construction of new apartment developments. As such, these new build residential complexes (as explained in Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1) exemplify Millers and Dawes Points gentrification process, led by a government that envisions transforming the area into a more desirable landscape, which are more appealing to the new middle classes. These residents of the new community purchase properties and thereby alter the existing socio-economic demographic mix of the area.

Consumption theorists of gentrification would argue that the demands and preferences of the new middle class were the main drivers of gentrification in Walsh Bay theory (see Chapter 2, Section 2.2.1 for an explanation of ‘consumption’ theory). That is, the new middle classes demanded ‘world-class commercial, residential and cultural facilities’ (NSW Audit Office 1998), which transformed Walsh Bay from a derelict port into a gentrified landscape. An important part of this transformation was the conversion of Walsh Bay’s derelict piers and shore sheds into up-market residential facilities as well other cultural and commercial amenities (as depicted in Figure 4.8). These conversions were part of Sydney’s wider loft transformation phenomenon, which began in the 1970s due to the release of redundant industrial spaces (Shaw 2007). Walsh Bay was converted into a landscape that featured ‘lavish’ entertainment facilities such as the Sydney Theatre Company and the Sydney Dance

27 ‘Bangarra Dance Theatre is ‘Australia’s leading Indigenous performing arts organisation’ (Bangarra Dance Theatre 2012). 28 In 2005, the National Trust awarded the Walsh Bay developers the National Trust Development Award for the Parbury Apartments and Ruins and Walsh Bay (Mirvac 2010). 96

Company as well as an assortment of restaurants and cafés. The features of Walsh Bay that appealed to the new middle class are further discussed in Chapter 5, Section 5.3.

Figure 4.8 has been removed due to Copyright restrictions

Figure 4.8: Western view of Walsh Bay. On the left side of photograph lie the redeveloped residential and commercial shore sheds, which were originally used during the maritime industry. In the centre of the photograph is pier eight/nine, which is now used for commercial offices. In the right foreground of the image are yachts that are moored to pier six/seven (the residential pier). The conversion of these buildings into residential apartments began in 2004. Source: (Walsh Bay Arts & Commerce 2013)

The gentrification of Millers and Dawes Points’ landscape has not been restricted to Walsh Bay. Gentrification can also be observed at the southern end of Millers Point where four tall and closely situated apartment buildings were constructed in a period that lasted from 1995 to 200729. In addition, an upmarket hotel was constructed in the area in 1992 (Haskell 1997) on Kent Street and is marketed as a ‘boutique hotel, with ... timeless elegance and refined sophistication’ (Langham Hotels International Limited 2012). Ultimately, the redevelopment of Walsh Bay transformed the deindustrialised derelict site into an upmarket residential and commercial area. Through the re-imaging of the area (and a new gentrified landscape), new gentrifiers were attracted to an area that was previously considered undesirable. For the existing local population, the demise of the maritime industry and the arrival of gentrifiers meant that ‘the traditional links between work, place and home were inexorably loosening’ (Housing NSW 2007c, 21). Consequently, for some long-term residents, Millers and Dawes Points appeared to be losing its unique ‘urban village’ character of yesteryear.

These new apartment developments have provided a means for large numbers of the new middle class to enter and reside within Millers and Dawes Points. I describe the characteristics of this new middle class (or the ‘new community’) and their counterpart, the ‘traditional community’, in the following section.

4.7.1 Living in Millers and Dawes Points Over time, various conditions of adversity and struggle have united Millers and Dawes Points’ residents. Gentrification has both cemented community relationships and caused

29 These apartment buildings include The Observatory, The Highgate, Stamford on Kent and the Stamford Marque. 97 fracturing of the community. These moments are pivotal to this thesis. The division of urban space, through the reshaping of Millers and Dawes Points as gentrified consumption space, has resulted in the presence of two distinct groups that are a product of Millers and Dawes Points transformation from an industrial to a (post-)industrial location. This distinction was identified as a central theme for this thesis, which is concerned more with the politics of urban fracturing than the diversities within (which would be a different thesis).

During the preliminary phase of my research (see Chapter 3, Section 3.3.1 for a description of this time), the informal interactions I had with residents indicated that there were two separate groups of people occupying the same space in this part of Sydney’s inner city. One member of the new community noted after a Millers Point Resident Action Group Meeting: ‘You could say this area is divided between the haves and the have nots’ (member of the new community 2008, pers comm. 6 September). Another resident of the traditional community similarly stated: ‘There’s lots of newcomers in the area compared to ten years ago’ (member of the traditional community, 2008, pers comm. 6 September). More telling of the community dynamics were comments such as: ‘We [traditional community] don’t really talk to ... the people down on the wharves’ (member of the traditional community, 2008, pers comm. 9 December). Early investigations in the compilation of this social history chapter indicated that there was a cultural shift in the 1970s that marked the beginning of gentrification and the entrance of a higher socio-economic demographic into the area (as discussed in Section 4.5). I used this distinction that was offered to me by some of Millers and Dawes Points’ residents (and later supported by my own historical investigations) as a practical way to understand and present the complexity of issues in the area.

Other academic studies that identify regions as demarcated between gentrifiers and other non- gentrifiers include Spain (1993, 156) who explored the conflicts that arose between ‘been- heres versus come-heres’ in gentrified rural locations. Later, Hof and Sen (2005, 1167) explained that ‘an interplay of within-community externalities and market forces can lead to cities that are segregated by tenure and income’. In their study, Hof and Sen (2005) explored how different tenure types (including renters and homeowners) can ‘self organize into communities’ which affect civic quality. Butler (2003, 2469) examined the lifestyles of gentrifiers in North London and found that their purposeful lifestyle choices that made them live ‘quite apart’ from the ‘non-middle-class’ in the same area. Other studies have also researched organised opposition to gentrifiers by local long term residential communities in 98 low income areas (see Robinson 1995 on San Francisco; Wilson, Wouters and Grammenos 2004 on Chicago).

4.7.1.1 Labelling the traditional and new communities After having the two residential communities in Millers and Dawes Points highlighted to me, I began the process of labelling them for the practical purposes of this research. I considered drawing on labels used in existing literature, which also distinguished between socio- economic demographics in gentrifying neighbourhoods. However, I felt that labels such as ‘gentrifiers’ or the ‘non-middle-class’ (as used in the Butler 2003 study for example) poorly represented the uniqueness of Millers and Dawes Points’ residents. For the ‘non-gentrifier’ population of Millers and Dawes Points, I sought a title that reflected their long-standing occupation in the area. The label ‘original community’ was considered but rejected because the original occupiers of the land were the Indigenous Cadigal people (as discussed in Section 4.2) who were not the occupants I was referring to. I also considered the title ‘old community’, but negative connotations associated with the term ‘old’ (such as irrelevance and out-datedness) could have led to biased interpretations. Instead, I opted for the descriptions used by the residents themselves. During an in-depth interview with a ‘non- gentrifier’ (where the longevity of the social housing population was discussed), the resident stated:

They’re sending a lot of people from here [Millers and Dawes Points] up to [a distant neighbourhood] now ... That’s my concern of the permanency of the traditional community here (Respondent #530, 21 March 2011, emphasis added)

The Oxford dictionary defines ‘traditional’ as ‘being part of the beliefs, customs or way of life of a particular group of people, that have not changed for a long time’ (Hornby 2005). The word ‘traditional’ has been adopted for this research because it was applied by a member of her/his own community to describe themselves. As described in Section 4.6.1, the government has historically owned large portions of properties in Millers and Dawes Points, which are now part of Sydney’s social housing stock

30 Please refer to Appendix I (Table 1) to view the socio-economic attributes of Respondent #5. 99 managed by Housing NSW31. In 2008, David Borger (NSW Minister for Housing) estimated that Housing NSW owned nearly 80 percent of properties in Millers and Dawes Points (Minister for Housing 2008). I refer to the individuals who reside within social housing as residents of the traditional community. Because of Millers and Dawes Points’ historical connection to the maritime industry, some residents of the traditional community were once employed in maritime activities and other residents have ancestral connections to people who worked on the wharves. Thus, the word ‘traditional’ reflected the long-standing presence of the ‘non-gentrifier’ population in the area.

The label ‘new community’ was similarly derived. For residents not living in social housing, individuals must purchase or rent properties through the private real estate market. The occupants of these new residential apartment developments in Millers and Dawes Points are representative of the ‘new middle class’. This cohort was described by many residents of Millers and Dawes Points as ‘newcomers’ or the ‘new people’. For example, a member of the non-gentrifier population wrote: ‘Millers [and Dawes Points] has some new people and some new buildings’ (Survey Respondent #4, emphasis added). Thus, this population was titled the ‘new community’. The labels ‘traditional and new communities’ have been applied as a practical way of distinguishing between these categories of people throughout this thesis. However, the author does not mean to imply that these two communities are a homogenous population. While at times they do identify as a group, there is diversity within these communities, which is explored in greater depth in Chapter 5.

Members of new community possess other general characteristics that identify them as a single cohort. The results from the survey instrument indicated that many residents of the new community are likely to be employed in services that are more professional when compared to members of the traditional community (as depicted in Figure 4.9). In addition, general trends of the surveyed cohort showed that residents of the new community have a higher rate of home ownership and have shorter tenures than members of the traditional community (see Figure 4.10 and Figure 4.11). These features of the new community are in line with the characteristics of the ‘new middle class’ as described by Ley (1980; 1994; 1996) (see Chapter 2, Section 2.2.1 for a description of the ‘new middle class’).

31 In addition to social housing managed by Housing NSW, Millers and Dawes Points also contained ‘community housing’. Community housing properties were owned by the state government but are managed by non-government community housing providers (Housing NSW 2012b). For this thesis, residents residing within community housing properties are also considered as part of the traditional community. 100

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Occupation Traditional Community New Community

Figure 4.9: Occupations of Millers and Dawes Points’ residents.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Rent Own Not Answered

Tenancy Type Traditional Community

New Community Figure 4.10: Tenancy types across the traditional and new communities.

101

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% 0-6 months 6 months - 1 1 year - 3 years 3 years - 5 5 years - 10 10 years and year years years upwards

Duration of Residence Traditional Community New Community

Figure 4.11: Duration of residence in Millers and Dawes Points.

Due to the traditional community’s longer tenures, many members were living in Millers and Dawes Points during the early stages of the suburbs’ gentrification process. Some residents of the traditional community were opposed to the proposed new residential apartments. This opposition is discussed in further detail in the following section.

4.8 Resident protests against Walsh Bay’s redevelopment The official approval process for Walsh Bay’s redevelopment was accompanied by many complications and major delays. These obstacles were largely due to concerns over many aspects of the redevelopment, in particular, the retention of its heritage value (as discussed in Section 4.7). Those that were opposed to the redevelopment included local residents and other distinguished individuals32 who staged on-site protests in 1998 (Housing NSW 2007b). They argued that the redevelopment would alter the heritage value of the wharves, which were considered of national importance. In addition, they fought against the wharves being closed off to the public, raising issues of ownership and accessibility of public space (Housing NSW 2007b). Essentially, those in opposition to the redevelopment believed that the character of the area would be so dramatically altered that it would no longer represent the ‘birthplace of Australia’ (Housing NSW 2007b, 33).

32 These individuals included the leader of The National Trust, environmental activists Jack Mundey and Tom Uren, and other distinguished artists and architects (Susskind 1998). 102

Resident activism regarding the Walsh Bay redevelopment was unusual for this area because the local community was divided in their views. The local resident action group for Millers Point, Dawes Point and The Rocks were in favour of the redevelopment whereas another local resident action group: the ‘Walsh Bay Wednesday Workshop’ were opposed to the new plans. From this, it appeared that the once cohesive community was becoming increasingly fractured over changes occurring in their suburbs.

4.9 Conclusion In this chapter, I have provided a social history of Millers and Dawes Points that has centred on the major challenges that have shaped the area. I focussed on the various social, political and economic conditions that have underpinned Millers and Dawes Points transformation from a site of colonisation into a contemporary urban space more aligned with a global city. This chapter began by discussing how the local Aboriginal people were forcibly displaced to make way for the British who established a new convict settlement in Millers and Dawes Points. The suburbs were later transformed into an industrial town where occupants dealt with challenges such as the outbreak of diseases and changes in international trade. These difficulties brought the community together and resulted in the area being widely known as Sydney’s own ‘urban village’.

Following Millers and Dawes Points industrial period, the suburbs underwent another transformation to become a (post-)industrial residential and commercial landscape. This transformation was met with some resistance by local residents who staged protests and acquired the support of trade unions to halt redevelopment. These protests strengthened the solidarity of the local residents and contributed to the ‘urban village’ character of the area. Regardless of these protests, Millers and Dawes Points continued to be affected by new redevelopment, which was propelled through various production and consumption factors of gentrification. Such changes are visible in the redevelopment that has occurred in Walsh Bay and other areas within Millers and Dawes Points. Accompanying this transition has been a marked change in its socio-cultural demographic from blue-collar workers to an introduction of white-collar workers into the area. The movements to resist these changes appeared to have strengthened the ‘urban village’ character that still exists today.

While gentrification has clearly occurred in Millers and Dawes Points, the gentrification process does not fully explain the struggles over this urban territory that are still occurring. 103

To further explore these contests over urban space, the following chapter uses this social history of Millers and Dawes Points to explain how the traditional and new communities have developed their senses of belonging and attachment to this inner city place. By understanding how these communities have developed their ties to space, it is possible to better understand their senses of place and how these are becoming increasingly under threat in this part of inner Sydney.

104

Chapter 5 - SENSES OF PLACE IN MILLERS AND DAWES POINTS

5.1 Introduction Chapter 4 provided a chronology of some of the most significant historical events that have shaped Millers and Dawes Points’ landscape. Following from Chapter 4, I focus on the two main groups currently living in Millers and Dawes Points: the traditional and new communities. I show that the divergent historical and cultural experiences residents of the traditional and new communities had living in Millers and Dawes Points (discussed in Chapter 4) has impacted on how they have formed attachments to place. This chapter documents how broad trends that can be summarised as two distinct senses of place have been constructed and manifested in the complex and contested terrain of Millers and Dawes Points.

To explore how residents of the traditional community have developed their senses of place, this chapter has two parts. Each part separately examines how the traditional and new communities have constructed their senses of place in Millers and Dawes Points. To do this, I use interview data from residents as corroborated by the results from the surveys (which has been compiled into graphs). Part 1 begins with an analysis of the three main foundations on which the traditional community has constructed their senses of place: the birthplace of a nation narrative, generational linkages and their childhood experiences in the area. Based on these foundations, I follow this section with an analysis of the traditional community’s social interactions. I show that the traditional community’s social interactions have enabled the formation of strong social bonds that have led to the development of meaningful senses of place. In the next section, I demonstrate that residents of the traditional community have constructed boundaries that prevent newcomers from being considered as part of their community.

In Part 2 of this chapter, I shift my discussion to examine how residents of the new community have constructed their senses of place. Because members of the new community have had differing experiences living in Millers and Dawes Points, they have developed

105 attachments to place through a range of consumption orientated practices. I argue that residents of the new community have engaged with and capitalised on elements central to the traditional community’s senses of place. For example, I discuss how residents of the new community have drawn on the ‘urban village’ atmosphere forged by the traditional community’s members. Although members of the new community appreciated the ‘village’ atmosphere, they have also supported the sales of social housing, which encouraged the removal of social housing residents from the area. In this chapter I also explore how the history and heritage architecture of Millers and Dawes Points has appealed to and been consumed by residents of the new community. I show that members of the new community have consumed only a selective version of Millers and Dawes Points’ past.

Part 1 5.2 The construction of the traditional community’s senses of place This section charts how the traditional community have constructed their senses of place in Millers and Dawes Points. I begin by discussing the traditional community’s connections to place, which have been developed through narratives of nationhood, generational linkages and childhood experiences. I show that these three components have provided strong connections to Millers and Dawes Points for members of the traditional community. I then examine the social interactions within the traditional community (and their interactions with the wider community), and show that in the process of constructing their senses of place, residents of the traditional community have established boundaries that determine who may be accepted within their community.

5.2.1 ‘Birthplace of the nation’ Integral to the traditional community’s senses of place has been the positioning of Millers and Dawes Points as exemplars of the values of the Australian nation. I demonstrate that the hardship endured by the workers on the wharves during Sydney’s maritime period (c. 1820 to 1950), is remembered and celebrated amongst residents of the traditional community. Rose (1995, 91) has identified that the spirit of a nation may be recognised in certain places that appear to embody the ‘values’ of that nation. In Australia, Elder (2007, 42) described how the ‘valorisation of the manual working man’ is central to the nation’s identity. These working men or ‘battlers’ and the hardships they faced have played an integral role in ‘what it means to be Australian’ (Elder 2007, 42). This section demonstrates that these values continue to be celebrated amongst members of the traditional community because they have 106 displayed pride in the area’s maritime history and the associated values learned through these times of hardship. I show that these values have become an essential component of the traditional community’s residents’ senses of place.

An example of this value of nationhood can be found in the Sydney inner city suburb of ‘The Rocks’, a location popular amongst tourists visiting Sydney. During the 1970s, the Sydney Cove Redevelopment Authority began marketing The Rocks as the ‘birthplace of the nation1’ (Morgan 1991). Today, promotions referring to this narrative have continued, and The Rocks is still marketed as the place ‘where Sydney began’ (Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority 2011). Other marketing campaigns have encouraged visitors to ‘explore the stories’ (Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority 2008, n.p.) of the ‘birthplace of a nation’ (Travel Oz 2008, n.p.). While marketing campaigns have been focussed in The Rocks area, residents of Millers and Dawes Points have also felt the effects of these promotions. Residents were aware that because of Millers and Dawes Points’ proximity to The Rocks, the area also played a vital role in Australia’s (post-)colonial history. As one resident of the traditional community commented: ‘This [Millers and Dawes Points] is where Sydney grew from. Not just The Rocks, but here’ (Respondent #12, 25 March 2011). Members of the traditional community have drawn on the ‘birthplace of the nation’ theme and used it as a historical point of reference to celebrate their industrial heritage. For example, residents commented that the nation’s economy began with the trading of goods along Millers and Dawes Points’ wharves. This was made possible by the labour of the ‘wharfies’ and the support of their families. One resident of the traditional community noted:

The people that really kick started the economy of Australia came from here [Millers and Dawes Points]. Not the businesses that owned it but the families ... They say it [Australia’s economy] started on the sheep’s back. But ... it was here [in Millers and Dawes Points] (Respondent #12, 25 March 2011).

Another factor that added to the ‘birthplace of the nation’ narrative was the hardship endured at work on the docks of Millers and Dawes Points during the maritime period (c. 1820 to

1 These promotions refer to the ‘birthplace’ of the European nation of Australia. Morgan (1991, 83) claimed that these ‘birthplace’ promotions were ‘anglocentric’ and too focused on the role of men during the British colonisation of Sydney. 107

1950). As described in Chapter 4, working conditions were tough and suited only the most resilient workers. This resident of the traditional community explained:

It’s really awful to think that something that has had such an important part in the country’s history, where people virtually killed themselves [working on the wharves] is disappearing ... You [have] got to think of ... the amount of smoke they were inhaling, the fumes, the lead ... People gave their lives so they had a job and a roof over their head (Respondent #72, 25 March 2011).

Jackson (1994, 162) has observed that the passing of time assists in establishing a ‘historical bond’ with a place, which provides individuals with deeper connections to their location. This process of developing emotional connections over time is evident within some members of the traditional community. Evidence gathered in the survey instrument used in this thesis suggested that most residents (of both the new and traditional communities) indicated that history was important to the identity of their neighbourhood (as shown in Figure 5.1). However, the traditional community indicated that history was more significant to their neighbourhood identity as indicated by their higher selection of the ‘extremely important’ category (in the same question). This result suggests that residents of the traditional community considered that history was of greater importance to the identity of their community than members of the new community.

2 Please refer to Appendix I (Table 1) to view the socio-economic attributes of Respondent #7. 108

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Not Important Low Neutral Important Extremely Not Answered Importance Important Traditional Community Importance Level New Community

Figure 5.1: The importance of history to the identity of Millers and Dawes Points.

Residents of the traditional community have identified that the histories of Millers and Dawes Points are more important to the identity of their community than members of the new community. Through this ‘historical bond’, the traditional community have connected to Millers and Dawes Points and constructed their senses of place around the decades of hardship and labour endured by the men who worked on the wharves during the maritime period (Jackson 1994, 162).

5.2.2 Generational linkages This section demonstrates how some individuals have expressed connections to Millers and Dawes Points through familial ties. Eyles (1985, 67) noted that through kinship, stronger attachments to place may develop. These familial ties have contributed to forming strong senses of place for members of the traditional community. During the maritime trade of Millers and Dawes, properties were transferred on a kinship-based system that ensured generations of families occupied the same household (as discussed in Chapter 4, Section 4.4). While this system is no longer in place, some homes are still occupied by families that have generational links to the maritime trade. A resident of the traditional community with generational maritime connections explained her/his family’s ancestry:

109

My whole family worked for the Maritime [Services Board] ... We’ve been around here for six generations. [I] had an aunty who left school and her first and last job was [as] a telephonist at the Maritime Services [Board] (Respondent #43, 21 March 2011).

This resident’s family lineage, which extended back six generations living in Millers and Dawes Points, has contributed to her/his strong connection to the area. This respondent’s kinship ties have provided her/him with linkages that have reinforced their own sense of place ‘regarding where he [sic] is from and where he belonged’ (Kyle and Chick 2007, 219). In addition to kinship ties playing a role in developing connections to place, the same resident added:

In this whole area, you could say everyone was a battler ... It’s not me, but my grandfather and my great grandfather; they were the backbones of the country (Respondent #4, 21 March 2011).

This resident (quoted above) not only used her/his family lineage to construct their own sense of place, but they have also drawn on the ‘birthplace of the nation’ narrative. Here, this resident linked both generational ties and the ‘birthplace of the nation’ theme to reinforce her/his connection to the area. Eyles (1985, 62) suggested that this type of connection is important because it ‘ensures the continued social relevance of ‘community’, [and] ‘place’’. Thus, generational linkages and the ‘birthplace of a nation’ narrative have contributed to the senses of place for some individuals within the traditional community.

5.2.3 Childhood experiences in Millers and Dawes Points The childhood experiences residents of the traditional community had growing up in Millers and Dawes Points have also contributed to their senses of place. Shamai (1991) has explained that locations alone are not enough to create a well-formed sense of place. He has argued that meaningful senses of place are formed through lengthy occupations and involvement in that place (Shamai 1991). Moreover, Tuan (1977, 158) has noted that the greater numbers of linkages to place will strengthen the ‘emotional bonds’ to that space. In this section, I discuss how lengthy periods of occupation and involvement in Millers and

3 Please refer to Appendix I (Table 1) to view the socio-economic attributes of Respondent #4. 110

Dawes Points (such as those experienced through childhood) have contributed to the creation of more meaningful senses of place for residents of the traditional community.

Survey data indicated that those living in social housing (the traditional community) have longer tenures in Millers and Dawes Points than the new community (see Figure 5.2). Figure 5.2 suggests that the traditional community have had greater opportunities to build more meaningful senses of place as compared to the relatively short-term occupation by residents of the new community.

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% 0-6 months 6 months - 1 1 year - 3 years 3 years - 5 years 5 years - 10 10 years and year years upwards

Duration of Residence Traditional Community New Community

Figure 5.2 (also Figure 4.11): Duration of residence in Millers and Dawes Points.

While childhood experiences are important in constructing individual identities, senses of place can be reinforced through nostalgic narratives about shared childhood experiences (Cresswell 1996). These narratives are key to adequately exploring the senses of place constructed by residents of the traditional community (Cresswell 1996). For example, when residents share their childhood experiences they are able to ‘sustain and re-create their image of place’ (Tuan 1977, 174) and assign an identity to themselves (Revill 1993). Personal childhood narratives have generated nostalgic emotional responses by residents of the traditional community. For example, this resident of the traditional community commented on the ‘village’ style community s/he was raised in:

111

Growing up here [Millers and Dawes Points], we were sort of like one big family. If anything happened to you, someone along the street someone would offer to help out. You’d walk up the road ... and get a pack of tea from Uncle J ... and you find out later he wasn’t even related to you! (Respondent #4, 21 March 2011).

The importance of nostalgic connections for residents of Millers and Dawes Points are reflected through the establishment of the ‘Miller’s Point - New South Wales’ facebook© group4, which is a forum for community members to share personal childhood memories about growing up in Millers and Dawes Points. The social media site allowed residents to recall and discuss their memories of their childhood. For example, this member focussed on their childhood experiences in Millers and Dawes Points:

I am a local, born and raised on the Point ... I remember never locking a door or window ... I remember going to Fort Street Primary [School] and getting the little glass bottles of milk ... I remember playing netball, sewing, skate boarding and cooking at the Kingy5. I love the Point, boy did we have fun (‘Miller's Point – New South Wales’ facebook© group member, 16 September 2008).

Group members also shared their memories by uploading photographs, videos and organised reunions. Box 5.1 shows children’s songs sung by residents of the traditional community as children when they were growing up in Millers and Dawes Points. These songs were then posted and shared on the Millers and Dawes Points’ facebook© group wall.

4 At time of writing, the ‘Miller’s Point – New South Wales’ facebook© group had 161 members. 5 The ‘King George V Recreation Centre’ is locally known as the ‘Kingy’ or the ‘KGV’. The King George V Recreation Centre is located in The Rocks and provides dinner to the local community every month, which is paid for by the City of Sydney Council. 112

Box 5.1: Millers and Dawes Points’ childrens’ songs. ‘The Millers Point Mob are we The Millers Point Mob are we We're always up to mischieve [sic] Were [sic] ever we may be

One day in the courtyard ‘Come to Fort Street A copper [police officer] said to me Come to Fort Street If you belong to the Millers Point Mob You'll find it's very nice Then come along with me If it wasn't for the teachers, It would be a paradise. He grabbed me by the collar And tried to run me in Build a [bonfire] But I picked up my hair[y] fist Build a [bonfire] And knocked him in the chin Put the teachers on the top Put the school house in the middle How many eggs for breakfast And burn the bloody lot!!!.’ How many eggs for tea A loaf of bread as big as your head And a lousy cup of tea...... OI’

(Source: ‘Miller’s Point – New South Wales’ (Source: ‘Miller’s Point – New South Wales’ facebook© group member, 29 June 2008) facebook© group member, 6 August 2009)

After reading these children’s songs posted online, one group member reflected:

I have sung this song to my kids heaps over the years ... I am always telling them stories about growing up at Millers Point. They have no idea how great it was and the bond we all shared. I am lucky to have grown up in such a great place (‘Miller’s Point – New South Wales’ facebook© group member, 20 October 2008).

The residents’ recollections about the unity Millers and Dawes Points once had, served as a nostalgic prompt that assisted in linking the individual’s identity to the community as a whole. Through these recollections, residents of the traditional community have added meaning and value to their lives. By posting their childhood memories onto mediums such as facebook© (and also attending reunions) the residents’ senses of place have been reinforced and preserved.

5.2.4 The traditional community’s social interactions As Millers and Dawes Points’ residents live in relatively close proximity to each other, social relations are an unavoidable aspect of community living (Blokland 2003). Allan (1979, 2)

113 has defined ‘sociable relationships’ as the process where individual’s engage with others ‘purposefully and voluntarily’. While the levels of interactions may vary amongst residents, social relationships generally exclude those related to business and rather focus on ‘emotional and affectional ties’ (Herbert and Thomas 1982, 344). For Low and Altman (1992, 7), these social relations are important to the construction of meaningful attachments to place:

Social relations that a place signifies may be equally or more important to the attachment process than the place qua place ... Places are, therefore, repositories and contexts within which interpersonal, community, and cultural relationships occur, and it is to those social relationships, not just the place qua place, to which people are attached.

The following section provides evidence to show that the traditional community’s social interactions largely centred around two main themes: the ‘village’ style community and the local support network offered to its members by their community. Results from in-depth interviews suggest that from the traditional community’s perspective, Millers and Dawes Points’ social networks resembled that of ‘old-world’ style communities where emphasis is placed around kinship and familial ties. While these social interactions may seem redundant in the current urban context (Eyles 1985), I explain how a strong sense of social cohesion has contributed to the traditional community’s residents’ senses of place. Hay (1998, 5) explained that a strong sense of social cohesion leads to the development of more ‘rooted senses of place’, particularly for individuals that have ‘insider status and local ancestry’ to a place. I also show that the traditional community’s members have reflected this process and strengthened their senses of place by not accepting other groups of people they considered as ‘outsiders’. These outsiders are perceived to not possess the same long-standing connections to Millers and Dawes Points that the residents of the traditional community have.

Herbert and Thomas (1982) have noted that social class can play a role in determining the extent to which social interactions occur within communities. They found that working class communities relied more heavily on their social relationships than their middle class counterparts (Herbert and Thomas 1982). Such reliance was also evidenced in Millers and Dawes Points where social interactions and thus social relationships were carried over from the area’s industrial period (c. 1820 to 1950). During times of hardship and labour in Millers and Dawes Points, the maritime community relied on one another to pull themselves through

114 difficult times (as documented throughout Chapter 4). Today, the continuation of these working class values is illustrated in Figure 5.3, which depicts that residents of the traditional community appear to have a ‘stronger connection’ towards their community than members of the new community. These ties are particularly evident in the ‘strong connection’ category.

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% No Connection Low Connection Neutral Connected Strong Not Answered Connection

Connection Level Traditional Community New Community Figure 5.3: The traditional and new communities’ connection to the wider community.

A resident of the traditional community explained that the reason for their strong community connection was the local support network:

If [my social housing neighbour] didn’t hear from me for a couple of days or I wasn’t on the shopping bus, she’d be wondering where I was and she would think something’s happened, I’d better check. That’s how we operate; we’re on to each other’s phones. And it gets around. There is still that core of the community (Respondent #12, 25 March 2011).

Other members of the traditional community commented that even during times of hardship the community was still able to band together:

115

When the building next door to us [a social housing property] caught fire, within days the scaffolding was up and the roof had been repaired [by Housing NSW due to the rallying efforts of the traditional community]. And that does tend to make the community stronger because you’ve got to deal with it together (Respondent #96, 12 October 2011).

Another resident of the traditional community felt that these community bonds were related to the social housing residents themselves: ‘And the people [traditional community] that are here are ‘real’ people ... You couldn’t find a better neighbour to rely on, you just don’t find people like that’ (Respondent #37, 4 October 2010). This social dependence with other members of the traditional community has contributed to the formation of stronger social bonds (see Figure 5.3). These bonds in turn create more meaningful senses of place and a connection to Millers and Dawes Points (cf. Low and Altman 1992).

Even though villages are reminiscent of communities found in rural locations (Murray 2004), residents of the traditional community were often surprised and grateful for the ‘village’ atmosphere found in Millers and Dawes Points. Tönnies (1957) described that rural communities may be characterised by their attachments to place, close relationships with other individuals and community support. Residents of the traditional community expressed satisfaction with having their community reflect characteristics that can be found in rural communities. This member of the traditional community noted:

If it wasn’t for the CBD ... I could be anywhere in a small country town. You cross over one street and you’re in a completely different area. It’s still a small community area here [Millers and Dawes Points] (Respondent #68, 26 March 2011).

The social consequences of living in an area akin to small rural towns have not been lost on the residents of the traditional community as some residents experienced the limited privacy as a by-product of the strong community network:

6 Please refer to Appendix I (Table 1) to view the socio-economic attributes of Respondent #9. 7 Please refer to Appendix I (Table 1) to view the socio-economic attributes of Respondent #3. 8 Please refer to Appendix I (Table 1) to view the socio-economic attributes of Respondent #6. 116

It [Millers and Dawes Points] is ‘villagey’ [sic]. We ... refer to Lower Fort Street as ‘Coronation Street9’ because everyone here talks about their day and everyone knows everyone’s business or makes up everyone’s business. There’s no secrets. At the same time there is the sense of community and care (Respondent #810, 30 June 2010).

Another resident similarly stated: ‘[Millers and Dawes Points] is a country town, complete with local gossip’ (Survey Respondent #5).

In this section, I have described that residents of the traditional community have identified with place to forge strong social bonds, which have produced an ‘urban village’ lifestyle located within a global city. Members of the traditional community have also used other techniques to reinforce their senses of place. In the following section, I discuss how residents of the traditional community have refused to accept three specific groups of people within their community to enrich their senses of place.

5.2.4.1 Uninvited ‘outsiders’ As outlined in Chapter 4, the gentrification of Millers and Dawes Points has contributed to the creation of two distinct communities co-existing in the same area (the traditional and new communities). Harvey (1989b, 265) has stated that ‘different classes construct their sense of territory and community in radically different ways’. Harvey (1989b, 266) elaborated by explaining that low income groups defend territory they perceive as their own by ‘exclu[ding] unwanted elements’. The actions of some members of the traditional community have reflected this process by constructing boundaries that dictate whether individuals may be considered as part of their community. This occurs by determining which individuals are perceived as ‘insiders’ (and therefore who are considered ‘outsiders’). Their dismissal of other residents is, however, passive because no overt actions to deter other individuals or groups have been taken. This section focuses on how residents of the traditional community have not welcomed ‘outsiders’ into their community because they present a threat to the maintenance of their well-established senses of place. These ‘outsiders’ do not have the same connections to place as members of the traditional community and include the ‘blow ins’, new social housing residents and residents of the new community.

9 ‘Coronation Street’ is a British television ‘soap opera’. 10 Please refer to Appendix I (Table 1) to view the socio-economic attributes of Respondent #8. 117

5.2.4.1.1 Uninvited ‘blow-ins’ ‘Blow-in’ is an informal Australian term used to describe newcomers who have not been ‘accepted by local inhabitants as one of themselves’ (Baker 1982, 21). The term is also used by members of the traditional community to distinguish themselves from newer social housing residents in the area who do not have the established kinship ties to Millers and Dawes Points.

The traditional community have a long history at attempting to protect their territory. Beginning with the maritime trade, families who worked on the wharves (and who also resided nearby) distinguished themselves from those who did not have maritime linkages. For example, one resident (now living in the area for 15 years) acutely felt the effects of the traditional community’s rejection upon arriving in Millers and Dawes Points: ‘When I arrived here it was still a maritime area. It was a working port. You were very much an outsider if you weren’t a maritime worker’ (Respondent #211, 31 September 2010). Another resident shared her experience of the traditional community’s attempts at preserving social homogeneity:

When I was going out with [my future husband – a resident born and raised in Millers and Dawes Points], the oldies were saying: ‘Why couldn’t he marry a [Millers] Point girl?’ And when I was married, they still used to think of me as an outsider (Respondent #7, 25 March 2011).

In this scenario, members of the traditional community were aware that she lacked tangible connections to place and thus decided she was an ‘outsider’ who should not become a member of their community. In a similar vein, another member of the traditional community remarked:

You can never be a true local ... my mum has been there for 50 years and we (her kids) still remind her that she is a ‘blow-in’ ... As they say: [there are] those that come from there [Millers and Dawes Points] and those that wish they [did] (‘Miller’s Point – New South Wales’ facebook© group member, 16 August 2008).

11 Please refer to Appendix I (Table 1) to view the socio-economic attributes of Respondent #2. 118

While maintaining standards that dictate who may be accepted within the traditional community has long been practiced, it has not prevented other residents from developing their own senses of place. Hay (1998, 12) has noted that ‘outsiders’ with long residential periods may develop a ‘sense of identification’ with a place. Likewise, the increased occupational periods of Millers and Dawes Points’ ‘blow-ins’ has resulted in some individuals constructing their own unique senses of place. This resident revealed her/his experiences of having been distinguished as a ‘blow in’ by residents of the traditional community:

I moved there [Millers and Dawes Points] in December 2000 and I haven’t even reached ‘blow-in’ status yet. The locals are extremely parochial. I think that if you were born in Sydney Hospital [nearby] and you were brought home you still wouldn’t be considered a local ... One of the locals was telling me that his uncle has a birth certificate ... with the initials: ‘UFB, MP’. What that stands for is ‘Upstairs Front Bedroom, Millers Point’ ... When I first moved in ... [my neighbour] a few doors down yelled out over the balcony that she was born in her terrace and there’s too many ‘blow-ins’ coming in (Respondent #112, 9 September 2010).

In the same interview, this resident (quoted above) expressed a sense of attachment to her/his local community and place after having lived in Millers and Dawes Points for 10 years:

It’s a good little community to be a part of ... everybody knows everybody ... I had my 50th birthday ... [and] in my speech I said to everyone ... that I felt comfortable in the area because it’s a community (Respondent #1, 9 September 2010).

Although some ‘blow-ins’ have resided in the area for considerable lengths of time and have begun to feel as part of the traditional community, residents of the traditional community will likely never consider them as ‘insiders’. For example, one resident has lived in the area for 39 years and although s/he is an integral part of the traditional community, s/he is still considered as a ‘blow-in’ by more established members of the traditional community. This

12 Please refer to Appendix I (Table 1) to view the socio-economic attributes of Respondent #1. 119 resident jokingly remarked: ‘[The traditional community still think] I’m a ‘blow-in’; I’ve been here only 39 years’ (Respondent #7, 25 March 2011). While the ‘blow ins’ may never share the same connections to Millers and Dawes Points (such as those with generational ties), they have experienced a sense of belonging based on their lengthy residential occupations in the area, and because they too are a social housing resident. In this way, the ‘blow-ins’ have developed attachments to both community and place over time to cultivate their own senses of place13 (cf. Proshansky et al. 1983).

5.2.4.1.2 Uninvited new social housing residents In recent years and according to the observations from members of the traditional community, Housing NSW has begun to use Millers and Dawes Points as a location to house social housing tenants who require emergency or priority housing. These new social housing residents are considered as a category separate to the ‘blow-ins’ because of their alleged drug dependencies and/or mental health issues, as observed by Millers and Dawes Points’ residents. Members of the traditional community have not included these new social housing residents into their own community because of their behaviour, which is perceived as unacceptable by the rest of their community. For example, this resident of the traditional community described the situation: ‘Housing [NSW] brought in people who broke into houses, robbed people, bashed people, caused trouble, were dealing drugs – bringing [in] a criminal element’ (Respondent #12, 25 March 2011).

Members of the traditional community also believed that new social housing residents have negatively affected their community because these residents have not contributed to the social fabric of the area. This resident of the traditional community explained:

If you offer them [new social housing residents] another place [to move to] they go because they’re used to moving around. They don’t have the roots and the emotional connection or the family connection [to Millers and Dawes Points]. They’re not bothered [to interact with our community] (Respondent #7, 25 March 2011).

13 As some members of the ‘blow-in’ group have lived in the area for considerable lengths of time and feel part of the traditional community, I have included some responses from the ‘blow-ins’ to represent the views of the traditional community as one whole in this thesis. 120

This resident (quoted above) has observed that the transient nature of the new social housing residents has created an emotional detachment to Millers and Dawes Points. That is, more transient residents have less time to connect with the community and develop strong social bonds. Therefore, these new social housing residents could not develop the deep-rooted senses of place akin to those experienced by the traditional community. As a result, the traditional community see their own social housing community as demarcated between those who contribute to the social fabric of Millers and Dawes Points and those who do not. This member of the traditional community summarised:

I think the social divide started even before the wealthy people [new community] moved in [to Millers and Dawes Points] ... It started with the type [of people] that Housing [NSW] brought in ... [We] were brought up with that close community feeling or family feeling with the Millers Point people. The first change we saw was with the [new social housing tenants] coming in (Respondent #1, 9 September 2010).

Residents of the traditional community have resisted accepting ‘blow-ins’ and newer social housing residents into their community. The ‘blow-ins’ have been considered ‘outsiders’ because their senses of place have not been constructed in the same ways as members of the traditional community. In addition, newer social housing residents have not been welcomed because they lack long-standing linkages to place and because of their unacceptable social behaviour. The traditional community’s residents attributed the new social housing residents’ lack of social engagement to their transiency. This increased residential transience has disrupted the continued development and maintenance of the traditional community’s senses of place because strong social bonds with the wider community are not being formed.

5.2.4.1.3 Uninvited members of the new community As discussed in Chapter 4, the gentrification of Millers and Dawes Points has resulted in a higher socio-economic demographic entering the area that do not possess the hardship narrative, ancestral links, childhood experiences or a considerable length of occupation in the area. This group is labelled as the ‘new community’ in this thesis. The changing socio- economic demographics of Millers and Dawes Points’ residents has not escaped the traditional community’s notice. This member of the traditional community has described the

121 how the influx of the new community has changed the socio-economic demographic mix of the area:

The wharves [in Walsh Bay] and the new units [apartments] that have gone up have brought in a completely different demographic. And in fact what you’ve got is two completely different extremes. You’ve got extremely rich people and extremely poor people in the same suburb and nothing else (Respondent #3, 4 October 2010).

While the new social housing residents were an unaccepted addition to the traditional community because of their perceived improper social behaviour, the new community are also unaccepted for their behaviour, but in different ways. Members of the traditional community believed residents of the new community were not committed to the establishment of strong social bonds. This resident of the traditional community described this social detachment:

You have that division between the poor people and the affluent people in the area ... If you go to the KGV14 on their BBQ night, you’ll find it’s all the lower income status people there (Respondent #6, 26 March 2011).

Another member of the traditional community elaborated on how the new community’s lack of social engagement has not added value to Millers and Dawes Points:

I think they’ve [new private housing residents] got a bit of a hide because they’re ‘Johnny-come-latelies15’ into the area. The only thing that’s got them into the area is their ... money. They don’t add anything to the community as far as I’m aware ... they don’t get involved (Respondent #1, 9 September 2010).

By the traditional community’s standards, members of the new community have not interacted or socialised with the rest of the community to a sufficient extent and are thus

14 The ‘King George V Recreation Centre’ is locally known as the ‘Kingy’ or the ‘KGV’. The KGV is located in The Rocks and provides dinner to the local community every month, which is paid for by the City of Sydney Council. 15 ‘Johnny-come-lately’ is an informal term used to describe newcomers in an area (Wentworth and Flexner 1975). 122 viewed as ‘outsiders’. The survey instrument used for thesis revealed that the issue of social engagement was pertinent to members of the traditional community (see Figure 5.4). Members of the traditional community characterised their neighbourhood by its ‘community connectedness’ to a higher degree than residents of the new community (see Figure 5.4). The influx of new residents (including individuals from both social housing and the new community) have not had long-standing connections to place, and are therefore not a large part of the social relationships already in place. For many in the traditional community, this apparent disconnectedness could pose a threat to the community connectedness and consequent ways of living for the long-term residents of Millers and Dawes Points.

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

Character Description Traditional Community New Community

Figure 5.4: Resident descriptions of the character of Millers and Dawes Points16.

16 Data used for Figure 5.4 was obtained from Question 12 of survey instrument (see Appendix V). 123

As examined in Chapter 4, members of the traditional community have struggled to cope with their loss of purpose when the maritime industry vacated Millers and Dawes Points. In response to this and the influx of new arrivals, members of the traditional community have constructed boundaries that define which individuals are considered ‘insiders’ and which are not. While the ‘blow-ins’ have the potential to become an ‘adopted’ member of the traditional community, new social housing residents and members of the new community possess few avenues to do so.

In Part 1 of this chapter, I described how residents of the traditional community have well developed connections to Millers and Dawes Points. While attachments made to places vary amongst individuals, three main themes have emerged around the traditional community’s senses of place. First, the ‘birthplace of the nation’ narrative provided a sense of connection to the area’s rich maritime history for residents of the traditional community. Second, some individuals of the traditional community possessed generational ties to the maritime period. These ancestral links were found to have deepened their connections to Millers and Dawes Points. Childhood experiences were the third main way that ties were made to Millers and Dawes Points. Members of the traditional community were able to renew their connection to the area by sharing their memories with each other.

I discussed how the traditional community’s focus on creating and maintaining social relationships established during Millers and Dawes Points’ maritime period (c. 1820 to 1950) has been brought into the present. The community atmosphere that exists in Millers and Dawes Points can also be attributed to residents of the traditional community who were responsible for the area’s ‘urban village’ title, which exists to this day. Residents of the traditional community constructed boundaries that dictated whether ‘outsiders’ could become part of their community. In particular, the ‘blow-ins’, new social housing residents and members of the new community have been rejected because they lacked tangible connections to Millers and Dawes Points. Because these newcomers appeared to be socially detached from the wider community, they presented a threat to the development and maintenance of the traditional community’s senses of place.

124

Part 2 5.3 Constructing the new community’s senses of place In Part 2 of this chapter, I explore how residents of the new community have developed their senses of place in dissimilar ways to members of the traditional community. As discussed in Section 5.2.4.1.3, members of the traditional community believed that residents from the new community did not possess the same tangible links to Millers and Dawes Points because there was no evidence of the hardship narrative, ancestral links and/or childhood experiences. In addition, unlike the traditional community, residents of the new community have had less residential longevity in Millers and Dawes Points and are therefore, less established as a community (as discussed in Section 5.2.3). Regardless of their shorter residencies and their lack of historical links, 82 percent of the new community expressed a level of satisfaction about living within Millers and Dawes Points (see Figure 5.5). This statistic indicates that most residents of the new community have developed positive associations towards the area.

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% Not Satisfied Low Satisfaction Neutral Satified Extremely Not answered Satisfied

Satisfaction Level Traditional Community

New Community

Figure 5.5: Level of resident satisfaction living in Millers and Dawes Points.

In Part 2 of this chapter, I show that members of the new community have developed their connections to Millers and Dawes Points in very different and distinct ways to members of the traditional community. I examine how residents of the new community developed

125 attachments to Millers and Dawes Points through cultures of consumption of the gentrified landscape. In particular, I discuss how members of the new community were enticed to the area by the narratives central to the traditional community’s senses of place. For example, residents of the new community have engaged with the ‘urban village’ atmosphere, however, their differing interpretations of this ‘urban village’ have meant that their social interactions within it and with the existing community are different to the traditional community’s. Some members of the new community have concluded that the traditional community no longer belong in Millers and Dawes Points because they do not possess the financial capacity to purchase or (privately) rent property in the area.

I also explore how the new community’s gentrifier tastes have also acted as a specialised and discriminating form of consumption because they have selectively consumed narratives about Millers and Dawes Points’ history and heritage architecture, which are integral to the traditional community’s senses of place. However, I demonstrate that members of the new community have only consumed aspects of Millers and Dawes Points that are most appetising to their gentrifier tastes (the consumer preferences of gentrifiers were discussed in Chapter 2, Section 2.2.1). This selective consumption of Millers and Dawes Points’ heritage architecture and public (art) installations has valorised ‘palatable aspects of the [area’s] past’ (Shaw 2005, 58). As a result of this consumption, members of the traditional community have been repelled from their own neighbourhood because residents of the new community were engaging with Millers and Dawes Points in a way that ‘involve[d] no awareness of the deep symbolic significances of place’ (Relph 1976, 82).

5.3.1 Drawing on the ‘urban village’ atmosphere This section concentrates on how residents of the new community have developed attachments to Millers and Dawes Points through engagement with the ‘urban village’ atmosphere of the area, which has been forged by members of the traditional community. However, I show how the new community’s social interactions have been operationalised in isolation from the traditional community and have in effect, marginalised the traditional community, especially through their support of the sales of social housing.

According to Eyles (1985, 79), a community can be a ‘negotiated commodity’, sought after by people with ‘careerist lifestyle[s]’. As many members of the new community have ‘careerist lifestyle[s]’ (see Chapter 4, Figure 4.9), I argue that they have been drawn to 126

Millers and Dawes Points for the ‘instant community’ and suburban feel contained in the area at the time of property purchase (Eyles 1985, 79). This resident of the new community explained:

It’s just lovely [here in Millers and Dawes Points]. The lifestyle is wonderful ... Living here is like being in the suburbs but being in the middle of the city. So you’ve still got the birds and the trees and a little bit of suburban feel but around the corner is George Street17 ... There’s a sense of community (Respondent #1918, 2 September 2010).

Another member of the new community similarly stated:

What we like about where we live is it’s the oldest suburb in Sydney [Millers and Dawes Points] ... and there is still that feeling of community where we live ... and we’ve embraced that feel (Respondent #2319, 14 September 2010).

This member of the new community commented on the ‘urban village’ feel of Millers and Dawes Points: ‘It [Millers and Dawes Points] is a village area on the edge of the CBD. There is nowhere more historic in Sydney’ (Survey Respondent #170).

It is clear that some members of the new community have found Millers and Dawes Points’ ‘urban village’ atmosphere appealing. Even though strong social relationships are an integral part of ‘villages’, the remainder of this section details how other members of new community might like the idea of a cohesive village but have not engaged in the implicit social interactions of a ‘village’. Figures 5.3 and 5.4 show evidence of how community connectedness is not highly prevalent amongst the new community. When asked to elaborate on their community relationships many residents of the new community mentioned the divide between the new and traditional communities, as one noted:

17 George Street is located approximately 200m from Millers and Dawes Points. George Street is considered one of the inner city’s main streets because of its commercial activities as well as a high volume of pedestrian and vehicular traffic (City of Sydney Council 2012). 18 Please refer to Appendix I (Table 2) to view the socio-economic attributes of Respondent #19. 19 Please refer to Appendix I (Table 2) to view the socio-economic attributes of Respondent #23. 127

There are two communities, an affluent high rise and a much less affluent [social] housing/homeless population. These two groups occasionally meet, but usually under negative circumstances (Survey Respondent #138).

Another member of the new community stated: ‘There’s a few [social housing residents] ... that’ll say hello. The rest, there’s very little interaction’ (Respondent #1820, 10 October 2010). Another member of the new community similarly noted that ‘[Millers and Dawes Points contain a] mixture of old and new [residents] that does [sic] not mix’ (Survey Respondent #178). Some residents of the new community even doubted the existence of a cohesive community atmosphere, as one remarked:

I don’t think there is such a thing as a community here. I don’t think that anybody thinks that we all belong to one area therefore we have identifiable and similar interests ... We just live here (Respondent #18, 10 October 2010).

Another resident of the new community similarly stated: ‘The [new] community isn’t the strongest ... people generally keep to themselves’ (Survey Respondent #432).

Although the traditional and new communities live cheek by jowl with each other, their social interactions remain separated. Robson and Butler (2001) identified a similar phenomenon among differing socio-economic and ethnic groups in London. They described the social distance as ‘tectonic’ (Robson and Butler 2001, 77), that is, social interactions were of a ‘parallel nature rather than integrative nature; people keep, by and large, to themselves’ (Robson and Butler 2001, 77). This spatial distance enabled gentrifiers’ ‘material and cultural distance [from lower socio-economic demographics]’ (Robson and Butler 2001, 84). While some residents of the new community were drawn to the community feel in Millers and Dawes Points, Harvey (1989b, 266) has explained that affluent groups are not as reliant on their local community because their high incomes enable them to acquire the items needed to ‘sustain life’ for themselves. Thus, social relationships with other members of the community are ‘unnecessary’ because they ‘command’ space through their incomes (Harvey 1989b, 266). On inner city areas Smith (1999, 28) identified that ‘communities ... are of diminishing importance in urban areas’. The strong social bonds that were historically

20 Please refer to Appendix I (Table 2) to view the socio-economic attributes of Respondent #18. 128 important to the well-being of the traditional community (particularly during the maritime period) appear to have not been as crucial to members of the new community. The physical proximity that once inspired kinship is no longer an essential ingredient in urban community living. Members of the new community appear to not rely on their neighbours in the same manner that residents from the traditional community do, or once did.

Regardless of the social divide between the two communities, the new community appear satisfied with the relationships they have formed within their own definitions of community. Figure 5.6 suggests that most of the social interactions within the new community are of a positive nature. When asked to elaborate on the social relationships residents have, some residents indicated that social cohesion was largely due of the type of residential dwelling. This resident of the new community explained:

In the building I'm in [the community is] very strong. It’s very friendly ... But outside of the building; I don’t think we have any [social interactions with members from the wider community] (Respondent #2021, 11 October 2010).

Another member of the new community also noted the division between the traditional and new communities:

I think each of the apartment blocks have their own character. There’s definitely a pretty good sense of community within my building specifically, but I guess there is a bit of a separate identity with the cluster of the high density apartments, which have a very different socio-economic demographic to the terrace dwellers or the old maritime and the [social housing] precinct further up the road (Respondent #2422, 6 September 2010).

21 Please refer to Appendix I (Table 2) to view the socio-economic attributes of Respondent #20. 22 Please refer to Appendix I (Table 2) to view the socio-economic attributes of Respondent #24. 129

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% No Minimal Poor Ok Friendly Very good Other relationship Relationship Type Traditional Community New Community

Figure 5.6: Resident description of their social relationships.

While some members of the new community have capitalised on the ‘urban village’ feel of Millers and Dawes Points, it appears that other members of the new community were sceptical as to whether such a ‘village’ exists. Other residents of the new community more prominently identified their own apartment blocks (which are products of the area’s gentrification) as spaces where most social interaction occurred with their community.

The new community’s social interactions are clearly different to that of the traditional community’s because their social engagements appear to have been restricted within their own apartment buildings and have not extended to Millers and Dawes Points’ community as a whole, and particularly not to the existing residents of the traditional community. Additionally, members of the new community seemed content to build on the senses of place constructed by the traditional community, but appear to have not actively contributed to establishing and maintaining these social bonds with the wider community to a significant extent. While residents from the new community have drawn on the ‘urban village’ feel largely developed by members of the traditional community, there were relatively few concerns at the prospect of losing the social housing community from Millers and Dawes Points. The following section explores this position toward the sales of social housing held by residents of the new community.

130

5.3.1.1 Marginalising social housing residents through the sales of social housing This section examines why members of the new community have supported the sales of social housing (an arrangement known as the ‘sell offs’). In Section 5.2.4.1, I discussed how residents of the traditional community have not accepted ‘outsiders’ because they lacked tangible kinship links to Millers and Dawes Points. Members of the new community have also marginalised other communities in Millers and Dawes Points but in less symbolic ways. Harvey (1989b) noted that for affluent groups, money is often how individuals gain access to and become part of that community. Thus, new residents in Millers and Dawes Points have gained access to the new community by purchasing or renting properties through the private real estate market. In this section, I discuss how the purchasing power of the new community has been pivotal to the marginalisation of the traditional community, and in particular newer social housing residents.

As discussed in Section 5.2.4, social interactions between the new and traditional communities have been limited at best. The lack of kinship bonds between these communities is reflected in the new community’s views about issues in the area, such as the social housing sell offs. Figure 5.7 displays residents’ views about the sell offs, which have been largely demarcated based on tenure type at the time of survey distribution. The majority of the traditional community were opposed to the sell offs, whereas most members of the new community were largely in favour (see Figure 5.7). Through the surveys and in-depth interviews, residents of the new community indicated that they felt more entitled to Millers and Dawes Points’ territory and thus supported the sell offs for three main reasons: economic feasibility, demographic composition and neighbourhood aesthetics, which are discussed in detail in the remainder of this section.

131

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

Response to Social Housing Sales Traditional Community

New Community

Figure 5.7: Resident views towards the social housing sell offs in Millers and Dawes Points23.

As discussed in Chapter 1, much of Millers and Dawes Points’ social housing stock has deteriorated and requires renovations. The heritage listing of the properties (previously described in Chapter 4, Section 4.7) complicates this issue by increasing the standard to which the properties must be renovated (Housing NSW 2008b). Overall, the process of renovating the properties is a costly exercise (Housing NSW 2008b). As a result, Housing NSW has repeatedly stated that the sell offs are the only viable option to maintain the historical integrity of these properties (Housing NSW 2008b; Minister for Housing 2008). Although, some residents of the new community have disagreed with Housing NSW’ standpoint. One member of the new community stated: ‘Disposal of state assets in [social] housing should be avoided’ (Survey Respondent #425).

23 Data used for Figure 5.7 was obtained from Question 25 of survey instrument (see Appendix V). 132

A member of the new community commented on how the sales would negatively affect the area: ‘[The sales of social housing] will bring wealthier people into the area [which] will lose part of the Miller [and Dawes] Point[s]’ character and tradition’ (Survey Respondent #156). Another resident of the new community similarly stated: ‘[The sales of social housing will cause] more homeless people on the street [as well as] higher crime rates’ (Survey Respondent #142). However, many more members of the new community agreed with Housing NSW’ viewpoint about how the sell offs were the most economically feasible solution for the properties:

The sale of some [social housing] terraces is sound practice. I believe [social housing] tenants can be accommodated more efficiently elsewhere. It’s to do with getting more bang for your buck. Taxes have to support [social housing] and while I think that’s proper, I’d rather not be paying for their [traditional community’s] harbour views (Survey Respondent #175).

Another individual of the new community responded:

It’s [the social housing sell offs] a shame but I think it’s inevitable. I mean if you look at the waiting lists for [Housing NSW’ properties] and you’re talking about someone who’s living in a $2 million house that needs maintenance, how many people elsewhere could that house? (Respondent #19, 2 September 2010).

Another member of the new community further explained:

[The social housing sell offs are] very good. This [Millers and Dawes Points] is prime real estate in the centre of our beautiful city ... [Housing NSW] shouldn’t be wasting money on heritage renovations (Survey Respondent #410).

The responses from these residents indicate that they believe that the individuals who have the financial capacity to purchase or rent properties on the private real estate market are more entitled to Millers and Dawes Points’ territory.

133

Many members of the new community also used the stratified socio-economic demographics of Millers and Dawes Points’ community to support the sales of social housing. Housing NSW and residents of the new community argued that the sell offs would more evenly balance the distribution of social and private housing in the area (Minister for Housing 2008). At present, approximately 80 percent of properties in Millers and Dawes Points are managed by Housing NSW (Minister for Housing 2008). The alleged difficulty with socio-economic imbalances is that locations with large proportions of social housing residents are often type- casted as areas plagued with anti-social behaviour and poverty (Morris 2010). Therefore, areas that contain concentrated numbers of social housing are often looked upon unfavourably (Morris 2010). In line with this viewpoint, Figure 5.8 shows that residents of the new community identified drugs, crime, youth, anti-social behaviour and poor property maintenance as their main concerns associated with social housing residents.

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

Concerns About Social Housing New Community

Figure 5.8: The new community’s concerns about social housing residents24.

24 Data used for Figure 5.8 was obtained from Question 24 of survey instrument (see Appendix V). 134

The decision to sell off social housing is in line with Housing NSW’ general policy, which aimed to create more balanced communities (that is, communities that have balanced proportions of both private and social housing tenants) (Tovey 2010a). In 2008, the then Minister for Housing, David Borger, argued that these balanced communities are crucial to forming ‘strong communities’ (Minister for Housing 2008, 1). For Housing NSW, transforming Millers and Dawes Points into a ‘strong community’ required incorporating a more ‘employment-focused’ demographic profile into the area (Housing NSW 2008b, 2). This initiative to inject a ‘good mix of both private and public tenants’ into Millers and Dawes Points is indicative of a state government operating under a neoliberal paradigm (Minister for Housing 2008, 1). Here, the state is being led by an ideology based on free- market forces as the driver in facilitating urban transformation. In reality, the interests of a higher socio-economic demographic are being served by the state, which also takes advantage of the economic benefits this group brings. These benefits include a boost in the economy of the local real estate market as the new middle class purchase properties. The state government of NSW has led this gentrification process under an umbrella of policy that increases social mix in the city of Sydney.

Some residents of the new community have indicated they disagreed with Housing NSW’ decision to create a more balanced’ community:

‘I think it is a real shame and a loss to the community and a sign of greed! ... I believe [the traditional community] are making the area perfect ... I think [the traditional community] are a part of our society and it is great to have them as a part of our suburbs’ (Survey Respondent #122).

A member of the new community stated: ‘[The sales of social housing should not occur] to keep the socio-economic mix’ (Survey Respondent #134). Another member of the new community similarly stated: [If the sales of social housing occur] some of the diversity of the area will be lost’ (Survey Respondent #139).

These responses (combined with other similar views held by residents of the new community discussed in Section 5.3.1) demonstrate the diverse viewpoints held by the new community. This cohort of residents reflect a group identified by Brown-Saracino (2009, 81) labelled ‘social preservationists’. According to Brown-Saracino (2009), social preservationists are 135 concerned with retaining the presence of communities who existed in the area before them and maintaining the distinctiveness of the community. As with Brown-Saracino’s (2009) ‘social preservationists’, this small cohort of individuals from the new community also believed that Millers and Dawes Points’ appeal stems from the presence of the traditional community living in place. However, several more members of the new community have agreed with Housing NSW, arguing that a more balanced demographic is needed in Millers and Dawes Points:

When the [social housing] houses ... are sold, this will be a good, mixed community – some [social housing] residents, some private residents [new community] – lots of different people to rub along together as a vibrant community (Survey Respondent #109).

Another resident of the new community concurred:

It seems the majority of housing in the area [Millers and Dawes Points] is [social] housing. Area should be modelled more after areas with more diversity – [this diversity will] encourage improved homes in the area (Survey Respondent #161).

Some residents were convinced that Millers and Dawes Points would not suffer with the loss of the traditional community:

[The sell offs are] clearly in the public interest. It is a myth that public [social] housing is needed for residential character or to sustain long-term residents or to provide housing to local income earners who service the CBD (Survey Respondent #138).

In addition to aspiring to a ‘more balanced’ demographic composition, members of the new community have used the alleged anti-social behaviour of new social housing residents (these behaviours were discussed in Section 5.2.4.1.2) to further support the sales of social housing:

136

Anti-social behaviour, poorly maintained residences, drug and alcohol abuse ... [In my previous residential locations] I never had a beer bottle thrown at me in public and urination in the street never occurred (Survey Respondent #138).

Another member of the new community similarly stated: ‘[Social housing residents are responsible for] drunkenness, rubbish outside houses [and] spilling across pathways ... [social housing residents] act is if they don’t want to fit in’ (Survey Respondent #165).

Residents of the new community were also selective when discriminating against social housing residents. That is, members of the new community believed that removing new social housing residents would not affect the traditional community. This resident of the new community explained:

I'm against destroying a community, but the community is changing anyway, because these people [new social housing residents] never worked on the wharves. They never were part of the [traditional] community. They’re just another Sydney-sider that’s being housed [by Housing NSW] in a very expensive way (Respondent #19, 2 September 2010).

A resident of the new community also noted that the aesthetics of Millers and Dawes Points would be improved if social housing residents left Millers and Dawes Points:

Owners [new community] look after properties and don’t leave rubbish all over the footpath ... [like the traditional community]. Owners keep clean and better maintain homes. IT IS A HERITAGE LISTED SUBURB! (Survey Respondent #140, original emphasis).

This member of the new community noted the importance of heritage housing but not residents of the traditional community:

Not meaning to be snobby ... I think it’s [Millers and Dawes Point’s social housing] not a good use of money. I can understand obviously it’s your home and it’s very difficult. But I think all the houses should be done up. They’re

137

really nice houses and the people who live in them can’t probably afford to do that or it’s not their interest (Respondent #20, 11 October 2010).

In this section, I have considered how members of the new community have developed connections to Millers and Dawes Points by engaging with its ‘urban village’ atmosphere. However, evidence from the survey instrument suggested that most members of the new community have not actively contributed to the social atmosphere of the ‘urban village’ that appealed to them. By not actively contributing to the maintenance of social relationships and supporting the sales of social housing, residents of the new community have made the ‘urban village’ feel (a narrative central to the traditional community’s senses of place) more difficult to maintain. In short, and common to many gentrification scenarios, the arrival of the new community has actively diminished the major drawcard that initially attracted them into Millers and Dawes Points. In addition to Millers and Dawes Points’ ‘urban village’ atmosphere, residents of the new community indicated that they found the heritage and architecture of the area appealing. How members of the new community consumed the history and heritage architecture of Millers and Dawes Points is examined in the following section.

5.3.2 Capitalising on history and heritage architecture This section explores how members of the new community have been drawn to Millers and Dawes Points for reasons other than its ‘urban village’ atmosphere. In particular, residents of the new community have developed attachments to Millers and Dawes Points through appreciation of its history and heritage architecture, which are elements central to the traditional community’s senses of place. Due to the new community’s gentrifier tastes (as discussed in Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2), the parts of Millers and Dawes Points that have appealed to them include its heritage architecture and other public (art) installations, which essentially valorised ‘palatable aspects of the past’ (Shaw 2005, 58). I also demonstrate that the new community’s consumption of these histories have been critiqued as shallow and misguided by some residents of the traditional community.

Waitt and McGuirk (1996; 1997) have explored the commodification of Millers and Dawes Points, particularly how its heritage relates to the tourist market at the expense of ‘indigenous peoples, social histories, or ... the industrial infrastructure’ (Waitt and McGuirk 1996, 11). However, in addition to tourists, survey results indicate that residents of the new community 138 have also consumed the areas’ history and heritage architecture (see Figure 5.9). While members of the traditional community considered Millers and Dawes Points’ history as more important to the identity of their neighbourhood than members of the new community (as discussed in Section 5.2.1), 74 percent of the new community’s residents also believed that history was of some importance (see Figure 5.1). Residents of the new community also described how their consumption of Millers and Dawes Points’ history has fostered an apparent connection to the area:

[What is special about Millers and Dawes Points is] the living history of it ... this is where it all happened. Where they [colonial settlers] got off the boat the first time was here ... It’s living history and we’re just another bit of the living history (Respondent #2125, 7 October 2010).

Another member of the new community similarly stated: ‘I love that the area [Millers and Dawes Points] is part of the city, it’s historical and unique. It’s just so wonderful to live here’ (Survey Respondent #161). In addition to history, Millers and Dawes Points’ heritage architecture (such as its terrace housing) also appealed to residents of the new community (see Figure 5.9). Crilley (1993) has documented that heritage and architecture are used as forms of advertising by governments and redevelopment agencies so that distinctive images are used to persuade the consumer to purchase the product. To achieve this end result, Crilley (1993, 236-237) has noted that buildings are ‘designed to [be] ‘read’ as gigantic outdoor advertisements’ with the purpose of creating ‘mildly educational, entertaining architecture with popular commercial appeal’. Crilley’s (1993) observations were also evident in Millers and Dawes Points with members of the new community commenting on the appeal of Millers and Dawes Points’ heritage architecture:

What attracts me to the area [Millers and Dawes Points] is the sense of history and living in a terrace apartment [that is] about 210 years old. That’s nice and that’s as old as you are going to get in this country. It [Millers and Dawes Points] certainly has a sense of character that’s quite unique (Respondent #24, 6 September 2010).

Another individual of the new community added:

25 Please refer to Appendix I (Table 2) to view the socio-economic attributes of Respondent #21. 139

You don’t really associate that kind of heritage architecture with Australia. You think it’s all modern. And it [Millers and Dawes Points] is ... one of the oldest places in Australia. Just to think that people were living here, the first [European] people that came to Australia. It’s quite interesting to have that connection (Respondent #20, 11 October 2010).

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

Traditional Community Reasons to Live in Area New Community

Figure 5.9: Why residents lived in Millers and Dawes Points.

While members of the new community have the financial capacity to consume the heritage and history of Millers and Dawes Points through the purchase or rental of properties, the heritage and history that is being presented to them (and to the wider public) is an agreeable version of the past (Graham, Ashworth and Tunbridge 2000). Unless the new community actively research the area’s history or have the same experiential histories of place as the traditional community, only the most accessible and visible elements of that history have fostered an apparent identification with the past. For example, the residential and

140 commercial heritage architecture and/or the Walsh Bay plaques are part of this accessible history as pictured in Figure 5.10.

Figure 5.10: Walsh Bay Plaques26. These plaques are located at Stop Six of the Walsh Bay Partnership’s ‘Heritage Walk’ (Hickson Road). Source: 28-112mm zoom/digital/exp.auto/HK 2010

The Walsh Bay plaques were an initiative of the Walsh Bay Partnership that created the self- guided ‘Heritage Walk’ for visitors and residents27. To accompany the Heritage Walk, numerous informative signs were erected at various locations for visitors or residents to learn about the history of Walsh Bay and ‘re-live the history of early Australia’ (Walsh Bay Partnership 2009). When residents were asked to rate how well the plaques conveyed the history of the area, the new community were found to have greater responses in the more

26 Left plaque text reads: ‘This 1904 photograph shows the area in which Central Steps was built circa 1910. The wharf was originally used by small vessels for the transport of workers. It has since served as a pick-up point for charter vessels and was refurbished in 2006’. Right plaque text reads: ‘The original sea walls around Walsh Bay were constructed from turpentine piles driven side by side to form a continuous wall. This provided an ideal environment for rats and led to the outbreak of the bubonic plague in 1900. This major health issue was the driving force behind the construction of smooth faced rat proof concrete seawalls by the Sydney Harbor Trust. A system of ‘L’ shaped pre-cast concrete wall units placed on pre-cast concrete pad footings and fill was placed behind. Between 1906 and 1909 about 3km of concrete seawall was built under the leadership of Harbour Trust Chairman R. Hickson and Chief Engineer H.D. Walsh’. 27 The full Walsh Bay ‘Heritage Walk’ guide can be accessed from: http://walshbay.com.au/index.php/heritage/walks/history-walk. 141 positive categories than the members of the traditional community, particularly in the ‘well told’ category (see Figure 5.11).

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% Inaccurate Poorly Told Neutral Well Told Very Well Told Not Answered

Plaque Accuracy Traditional Community New Community Figure 5.11: Perceived accuracy of the Walsh Bay plaques.

Walsh Bay’s Heritage Walk focussed on the changing activities that occurred on the wharf over time. The plaques traced Walsh Bay’s history, beginning with Aboriginal occupation to present day commercial and residential developments. However, of the 30 plaques, only two sentences were dedicated to the arduous conditions for workers on the wharves during the maritime period (these difficult working conditions were discussed in Chapter 4, Section 4.4). This hardship narrative, central to the traditional community’s senses of place (as discussed in Section 5.2.1), has been erased in this ‘official’ version of Millers and Dawes Points’ history.

While the maritime period featured heavily in the plaques, the information was directed towards the machinery and other equipment used during the maritime period with little or no reference to the workers (cf. Shaw 2005). For example, one plaque described the function of a ‘hydraulic accumulator and pump’ used during the maritime period that is now preserved and on display in Walsh Bay. Although some aspects of Millers and Dawes Points’ less pleasant pasts, such as the plague that struck Sydney in 1900 were mentioned (see Figure

142

5.10), there was no reference to how many suffered at the expense of the disease. Apart from deaths, the government also resumed residential housing and entire families were uprooted from the area (as discussed in Chapter 4, Section 4.4). Another oversight was that the plaques did not mention that social housing (and its residents who are significant to this history) neighbour the Walsh Bay development. In this instance, the Heritage Walk failed to reference an integral piece of Walsh Bay’s history.

Figure 5.11 depicts that the information on the plaques has been largely accepted by members of the new community as accurate. The presentation of these details that dismissed or remained less focussed on some of the less palatable events of Millers and Dawes Points’ past, has ‘romanticize[d]’ the past (Shaw 2006, 184). Shaw (2006, 184) has stated that romanticising the past occurs by celebrating certain aspects, such as ‘the owner or purpose of the building’, followed by its sanitisation, where any underlying features that reflect a ‘conflict ridden past’ (Jackson 1995, 183) are stripped from the narrative. This glamorisation (and sanitisation) of the past has ensured that certain historical aspects of Millers and Dawes Points continues to appeal to members of the new community.

In addition to Walsh Bay’s Heritage Walk plaques, several other public (art) installations in Millers and Dawes Points have aesthetic value for members of the new community (see Figure 5.12). For example, even the physical remains of Millers and Dawes Points’ maritime heritage (located around Walsh Bay) have been included as ‘artful’ additions to the area. This resident of the new community remarked:

I think they [Transfield28] did a fantastic job because they kept all sorts of odd bits of machinery and bits of flooring and stuff that takes you back to history of these things (Respondent #1629, 28 September 2010).

28 ‘Transfield’ – the developer of Walsh Bay was responsible for readapting the maritime machinery into a public (art installation). 29 Please refer to Appendix I (Table 2) to view the socio-economic attributes of Respondent #16. 143

Figure 5.12: Examples of industrial heritage that have been preserved and adapted into the Walsh Bay redevelopment as public art30. Source (top and bottom): 28-112mm zoom/digital/exp.auto/HK 2010

Spearritt (1991) has noted that the preservation of industrial heritage is usually determined by its aesthetic value rather than its historical relevance. Furthermore, an item’s aesthetic value is largely influenced by the new community’s gentrifier preferences, which affect what is culturally acceptable in public spaces. However, pieces of industrial heritage that have been found aesthetically pleasing by members of the new community may not have the same effect on the traditional community. One resident from the traditional community found the attempts of industrial preservation offensive:

They [developers] have retained certain areas [in Walsh Bay] where the machinery is still intact. It doesn’t do anything, but it might have been used to

30 Top photograph plaque text reads: ‘DERRICKING JIB CRANE: This crane was used to load and unload cargo trucks and other vehicles at the south end of the jetty shed. The derricking jib crane differs from the jib crane as it has additional pulley blocks that allow it to ‘derrick’ (lift and move heavy weights)’. Bottom photograph plaque text reads: ‘LOADING PLATFORM AND WOOL BALE ELEVATOR: The original wool bale elevators lifted bales form the loading dock fronting Hickson Road up three levels to the top floor of the shoreshed. Each elevator was fronted by one of these timber-framed counterweighted loading platforms. The bales brought on wagons and trucks were unloaded onto the height adjustable platforms. They were then taken up the top floor by the elevators. At the time of their removal these elevators were the only remaining examples of their type in Sydney. This elevator has been adapted into this space.’ 144

lift or move the cargo about. So at the end of the day it’s as close as we’re going to get to some architect saying it incorporated all the historical things ... it’s sort of a little bit patronising because it’s only machinery (Respondent #1, 9 September 2010).

As with Walsh Bay’s Heritage Walk’s machinery, these public (art) installations have memorialised industry and prioritised it over the people who were integral in creating Millers and Dawes Points’ ‘urban village’ atmosphere that exists today.

Other public installations available to members of the new community to consume included preservations of the past such as ‘The Parbury Ruins’ and ‘The Paddock’ (see Figure 5.13). The Parbury Ruins are the archaeological remains of a cottage (from c1823) found during the construction of the ‘The Parbury’ apartment complex (Manage Meant Pty Ltd 2010). The foundations of the cottage have been preserved beneath The Parbury apartments and function as a museum for the public, which can be viewed by appointment. The Paddock (located in Pottinger Park, Pottinger Street) similar to The Parbury Ruins, hold the foundations of a cottage from c. 1850 (Walsh Bay Partnership 2003).

For Daniels (1992), one purpose of preserving historical remnants is to induce the senses of place associated with them. Residents of the new community may visit the variety of historical installations on display in Millers and Dawes Points and connect with the rich historical narratives on offer. Members of the new community indicated how these historical remnants were positive additions to the area: ‘We tend do go up to the ... The Paddock. I like it; it makes the place a bit more interesting’ (Respondent #19, 2 September 2010). Another resident of the new community stated: ‘They’ve [developers] left the old the sandstone [at the Parbury Ruins] ... I think it’s been really well done. When you go down there ... it has a sympathetic history feel’ (Respondent #1531, 14 September 2010). These responses indicate that some residents of the new community have been able to cultivate their own senses of place by connecting with the histories induced by these historical remnants.

Figure 5.13 has been removed due to Copyright restrictions

31 Please refer to Appendix I (Table 2) to view the socio-economic attributes of Respondent #15. 145

Figure 5.13: Top to bottom, Images of ‘The Parbury Ruins’ and ‘The Paddock’. Both images show the foundations of cottages that were built during Colonial settlement in Millers and Dawes Points. Sources: Top: (Tropman & Tropman Architects 2006). Bottom: 28-112mm zoom/digital/exp.auto/HK 2010

The combination of architecture, public artwork and historical installations dotting Millers and Dawes Points’ landscape, has distracted the new community’s residents from social issues and alternate histories of the area’s past (cf. Crilley 1993). As discussed in Section 5.2.1, the histories of the past were integral to the traditional community’s senses of place. While history also appeared to be significant to the new community, its residents have not engaged with a more robust and complete past in Millers and Dawes Points. They have a consumed a glamorised past (in line with wider gentrifier behaviours) that was constructed for them. Although members of the new community have bought into the traditional community’s historically derived senses of place, they have been unable to purchase the same past.

Part 2 of this chapter has demonstrated that new community have developed different senses of place as compared to residents of the traditional community. These differences have been contingent on the new community’s shorter residencies and differing socio-economic demographics. Some members of the new community were attracted to Millers and Dawes Points’ ‘urban village’ atmosphere, which was created by residents of the traditional community. While these residents of the new community appreciated the ‘urban village’ atmosphere, they have not engaged with the requisite social interactions required to maintain

146 it. In addition, Millers and Dawes Points’ ‘urban village’ atmosphere is at risk. To justify their support of the social housing sales, residents of the new community stated that retaining social housing is not economically sustainable and that the sell offs would balance the socio- economic demographics in the area as well as improve its aesthetics. The extent to which the ‘urban village’ atmosphere can survive beyond its traditional members in unknown.

Residents of the new community also consumed Millers and Dawes Points’ history and heritage architecture. I have described how the new community’s gentrifier preferences have led them to consume Millers and Dawes Points’ heritage architecture and public (art) installations. I have shown that the traditional community’s members have only consumed the most appealing aspects of Millers and Dawes Points’ past. While residents of the new community may have developed attachments to Millers and Dawes Points because of its heritage, many have not engaged with or acknowledged the histories that are specific to the traditional community’s experiences in the area.

5.4 Conclusions This chapter has explored the social dynamics of the traditional and new communities living in Millers and Dawes Points today. I have examined how broad trends that can be summarised as two distinct senses of place have been constructed by the traditional and new communities. The first half of this chapter examined how the traditional community’s senses of place centred on themes connected with the birthplace of the nation narrative, generational linkages and childhood experiences.

The traditional community’s senses of place helped its residents form strong social bonds, which led to the creation of more meaningful senses of place. To enhance their senses of place, residents of the traditional community also discriminated against ‘outsiders’. These ‘outsiders’ included the ‘blow-ins’, new social housing residents and members of the new community. The ‘blow-ins’ were not accepted as part of the traditional community because they were perceived to not have any long standing connections to the community, such as generational linkages. The traditional community’s residents refused to accept new social housing residents as part of their community because of their unacceptable social behaviour. Residents of the traditional community continued to reject ‘outsiders’ by not accepting members of the new community as part of their community. From the traditional

147 community’s residents’ perspectives, members of the new community did not engage with the wider community to a sufficient extent.

Part 2 of this chapter demonstrated that because of the new community’s shorter residencies and less established connections to Millers and Dawes Points, members of the new community constructed their senses of place in very different ways to residents of the traditional community. Members of the new community indicated that they developed their attachments to Millers and Dawes Points through the consumption of elements central to the traditional community’s senses of place. For example, I discussed how the ‘urban village’ atmosphere of Millers and Dawes Points (created by the residents of the traditional community) appealed to the members of the new community. Although social relationships are an integral part of ‘village’ lifestyles, residents of the new community were found to not have engaged with the wider community and thus, not contributed to Millers and Dawes Points’ ‘village’ atmosphere. While residents of the traditional community were integral in constructing the ‘urban village’ atmosphere, members of the new community were largely in support of removing the social housing residents from Millers and Dawes Points because they believed they were more entitled to this urban space. Residents of the new community argued that social housing should be removed from Millers and Dawes Points for financial, socio-economic mix and aesthetic reasons.

Members of the new community developed attachments to Millers and Dawes Points by consuming parts of the area that appealed to their gentrifier tastes. These aspects ranged from heritage architecture to public (art) installations. By consuming these public (art) installations, residents of the new community consumed a selective version of Millers and Dawes Points’ past. I have argued that by focussing on industrial remnants that were littered throughout the landscape, residents were invited to consume a selective version of Millers and Dawes Points’ histories purposely chosen by those who re-developed the Walsh Bay area for members of the new middle class. By consuming these more ‘agreeable’ histories, residents of the new community have missed some of the more unsettling events of Millers and Dawes Points’ past. These events included the outbreak of the plague and the harsh working conditions on the wharves during the maritime period (c. 1820 to 1950).

148

Chapter 6 - TERRITORIALITY: CONTESTS OVER URBAN SPACE

6.1 Introduction In Chapter 5, I analysed the two distinct senses of place experienced by the traditional and new communities of Millers and Dawes Points. The traditional community’s senses of place have come under threat due to the high desirability of their inner Sydney location. Millers and Dawes Points are together a small urban pocket that is increasingly subject to the demands of a limited supply of residential land, and the escalating real estate value of inner Sydney property. As gentrification and redevelopment cycles in Sydney reach saturation (Shaw 2007), the urban landscape reflects and reinforces inequalities produced by investment in residential development. As a result, in Millers and Dawes Points there are identifiable, spatially recognisable divisions between the wealthier new residential developments and the existing and older, poorer pockets of social housing (or the ‘new’ and ‘traditional’ communities respectively). The production of these divisions has resulted in tensions that have been revealed in the NSW state government’s and new community’s ongoing project to consolidate (more) terrain (Hayden 1995). This chapter is concerned with how the government and residents of the new community have engaged in acts of territoriality that have posed a threat to the traditional community and the senses of place experienced by its members.

This chapter is comprised of three main parts. The first two parts separately examine how the government and the new community have threatened the traditional community’s senses of place through practices of territoriality. The territorial strategies used by both groups are analysed with reference to Sack’s (1986, 28) three interdependent relationships of territoriality: ‘a form of classification by area, a form of communication by boundary, and a form of enforcement or control’. In Part 1 of the chapter, I utilise Sack’s (1986) three interdependent relationships of territoriality as a heuristic device to detail the strategies used by the NSW government to gain control of Millers and Dawes Points’ urban space. I demonstrate how these strategies have worked to threaten the traditional community’s senses of place and territory they perceive as their own. I trace how the government has used a

149 strategy of re-imaging space in Millers and Dawes Points to regulate and diminish the accessibility of social housing for tenants. Next, I explore how the range of methods deployed by the government have conveyed to the wider community that social housing (and its occupants, the traditional community) are unwanted and unwelcome in Millers and Dawes Points. I conclude Part 1 with an analysis of how the government has exercised its control over Millers and Dawes Points’ social housing and its residents.

In Part 2 of the chapter, my discussion shifts to explore how residents of the new community have also engaged with territorial strategies designed to secure territory. Using Sack’s (1986) three interdependent relationships of territoriality, I begin by tracing how Millers and Dawes Points have been re-imaged through development, and this image has been consumed by residents of the new community. This re-imaging has been enabled by Millers and Dawes Points’ restrictive real estate market, which has prevented a lower socio-economic demographic from entering the area. Next, I explore how members of the new community have ‘communicat[ed]’ another act of territoriality by supporting the social housing sales (Sack 1986, 28). I show that this support is aligned with their vision for Millers and Dawes Points: that social housing should be removed from the area. I then document how residents of the traditional community have responded to the new community’s vision. Part 2 concludes with an analysis of how members of the new community have exercised their control over Millers and Dawes Points using territorial strategies.

Part 3 of this chapter considers how the territorial actions of the government and the new community have affected residents of the traditional community. I argue that the outcomes of territorial processes have caused a rising sense of placelessness for residents of the traditional community. I also explore how members of the traditional community have responded to the actions of the government and the new community with their own territorial actions.

Part 1 6.2 Governmental territoriality in Millers and Dawes Points This section analyses the territorial strategies used by the government by drawing on Sack’s (1986) three interdependent relationships of territoriality. It begins by describing how neoliberal paradigms have influenced the ways in which the NSW state government has re- imaged space in Millers and Dawes Points. Through re-imaging and then undertaking 150 associated actions of limiting access, the government has mirrored Sack’s (1986, 32) first interdependent relationship of territoriality (‘classification’). The government has also promoted its vision for Millers and Dawes Points, which reflects Sack’s (1986, 28) second interdependent relationship of territoriality (‘communication’). This section then describes the government’s territorial acts, which ‘communicated’ that the traditional community are an unwanted presence in their vision for Millers and Dawes Points (Sack 1986, 28). Part 1 concludes with an analysis of how the government has used territorial methods, which reflect Sack’s (1986, 32) third interdependent relationship of territoriality (‘enforcing control’). Throughout Part 1, I demonstrate how the government’s territorial strategies have threatened the traditional community’s (sense of) attachment to a place in the city of Sydney that has been their home for generations.

6.2.1 Neo-liberal paradigms and the re-imaging Millers and Dawes Points as an act of classification National neoliberal ideologies have affected the nation’s housing market. Reduced and limited funding in the social housing sector by both national and state governments has meant that local areas such as Millers and Dawes Points have received increasing redevelopment pressures. This section explains how the government has encouraged the gentrification of Millers and Dawes Points by identifying and utilising Smith’s (1979; 1982; 1986; 1987a) ‘rent gap’ thesis. The effects of reduced funding for Millers and Dawes Points’ landscape reflects Sack’s (1986, 32) first interdependent relationship of territoriality (‘classification’). In this section, I describe how the government has provided the conditions necessary to support the re-imaging of Millers and Dawes Points as a location suitable for the new community. I show that this re-imaging has made social housing more difficult to access for members of the traditional community.

Historically, Australia has had high rates of home ownership partly due to the policies enacted by the two main political parties (i.e. both Labor and Liberal political parties) and is often referred to as a country that offers a solid supply of housing (Berry 1999; Milligan and Pinnegar 2010). Such measures initiated by Commonwealth and state governments to promote the supply of housing included the release of land at low cost intended for redevelopment (Stretton 1989), greater financing for housing projects as well as tax subsidies for owner occupiers (Jones 1983). As a result, home ownership in Australia reached 70.3 percent by 1961 (Milligan and Pinnegar 2010). By the early 1970s, housing provision was 151 becoming less secure (Berry 1999; Dodson 2007) as the pervasive effects of neoliberal ideologies were taking hold (McGuirk 2005; O'Neill and Moore 2005; Beer, Kearins and Pieters 2007; Chester 2010; Milligan and Pinnegar 2010). Following neoliberal ideology, many services provided by the government were reduced or redistributed to serve in the best interests of the capitalist economy (Beer et al. 2007). Reductions included social housing (as well as other public goods such as water and education) (Chester 2010). By the 1990s, home ownership levels amongst lower age and income groups were also in decline due to neo- liberally driven rises in property prices (Berry 1999).

Since the 1970s, Australia has taken a reserved approach to housing governance and relied primarily on the market to provide affordable housing (Milligan and Tiernan 2011). Support for individual home ownership took preference over funding for social housing. In addition, social housing was restricted to the most deprived areas of society, limiting those who could originally access the stock (Ruming 2014). There was also no significant movements to develop a comprehensive national housing policy during this time (Milligan and Tiernan 2011). As a result, funding for social housing in Australia significantly declined by the mid 1980s (Jacobs, Berry and Dalton 2013). And in the 11 years between 1989 and 2001, funding for social housing dropped by 26 percent1 (Jacobs et al. 2013). The national government’s reduced commitment to social housing is also reflected in the shift away from state housing provision to ‘Rental Assistance2’ within the private housing market. Rental assistance increased in 1993-94 to 2003-04 by seven percent3, whereas ‘Commonwealth- State Housing Agreement4’ funding decreased by 54 percent5 during the same time period (National Shelter and Australian Council of Social Service 2003). This reduction in funding resulted in the loss of approximately 50 000 units of housing stock around the same time (Morris 2010). The lack of funding for social housing reflects a neoliberal logic that private home ownership is the preferred option and that housing is the responsibility of the individual (Morris 2010). By 2010, 75 percent of social housing tenancies were provided to those in

1 Representing a drop of A$75 million in 2001 prices (Jacobs et al. 2013). 2 Rental Assistance is an Australian government housing program designed to ‘improve housing affordability for low income people’ in the private rental market. The program reflects the Australian governments’ ideology of encouraging individuals to accommodate themselves (National Shelter and Australian Council of Social Service 2003, 5). 3 In real terms. 4 The Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement aims to assist in housing provision mainly through the provision of social housing (Department of Families Housing Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 2012). 5 In real terms. 152 highest need, leaving little room for those who were not under immediate threat6 (Ruming 2014). In the nine years between 2001 and 2010, total social housing stock decreased by 6.6 percent (Ruming 2014).

Despite some investment in community housing7 as well as a one off injection into the social housing sector8 (during the 2000s), a longer term consequence of this neoliberal based approach to housing allocation is that social housing is currently in short supply (Jacobs et al. 2013; Ruming 2014). While government funding has been limited, other factors such as past sales to tenants and increasing costs (such as those associated with stock maintenance) have not helped increase social housing stock numbers (Gilmour and Milligan 2012). Today, Australia’s social housing stock now provides for less than four percent of the Australian population (Jacobs et al. 2013; Ruming 2014) and represents less than five percent of Australia’s total housing stock, which is considered small by international standards9 (Gilmour and Milligan 2012). In 2010, national demand for social housing far exceeded supply with 248 419 households on a waiting list (Ruming 2014). This issue is set to worsen as Australia’s social housing stock has not matched population growth rates or total housing stock ratios (Groenhart 2013).

Flow on effects have also occurred at the state level. Housing NSW possesses Australia’s largest social housing portfolio and the third largest portfolio in the world, comprising at over 150 000 dwellings (Audit Office of New South Wales 2013). While this may seem significant, in NSW alone, there are a further 120 000 people on the waiting list and the number of newly housed tenants almost halved in the decade from 2002-201210 (Audit Office of New South Wales 2013). To account for this, Housing NSW changed their allocation system to create different queues to prioritise individuals with greatest need (Hulse, Phillips and Burke 2007). For example, individuals who are eligible for priority housing include

6 Such as individuals experiencing domestic abuse. 7 As described in Chapter 1, Section 1.2.1 ‘community housing’ is run by smaller not-for-profit housing providers who manage social housing tenancies. 8 This injection was part of the Nation Building-Economic Stimulus Program, where funding was provided for a variety of essential infrastructure (Beer, Baker, Wood and Raftery 2011). 9 Amongst other more economically developed countries (Gilmour and Milligan 2012). 10 10 024 people were housed in the year from 2002-2003 compared to 6 434 people in the year from 2011-2012 (Audit Office of New South Wales 2013). 153 those who are homeless and/or at risk of harm11. There are also logistical issues for the future as demand is predicted to increase for single person and/or ageing households. This demand is unaligned with existing housing stock that consists of many three bedroom properties built at a time when large families formed the majority of tenants. As a result, there is a shortage of single bedroom properties which comprise of almost 60 percent of tenancies (Audit Office of New South Wales 2013). In addition, Housing NSW’ social housing stock is ageing with approximately 25 percent of it over 40 years old (Audit Office of New South Wales 2013). As these properties age even further, they will become more expensive to maintain and Housing NSW will require more funding to cover these costs. Overall, it is predicted that by 2016, the NSW social housing waiting list will grow by 60 percent (Audit Office of New South Wales 2013). With neoliberal ideologies that insist housing is the individual’s responsibility, maintaining an effective and efficient social housing sector now and into the future seems difficult (Morris 2010).

The neoliberal philosophies of the national government are having a clear effect on housing governance by the state government. Reduced funding has made social housing increasingly scarce across the nation and has also placed extra pressure on inner city areas such as Millers and Dawes Points (Morris 2010). As documented in Chapter 4, the concentration of Millers and Dawes Points’ social housing stock was a by-product of the precinct’s maritime era. Currently, Millers and Dawes Points contain a high concentration of social housing compared to the rest of the nation (Minister for Housing 2008). As gentrification cycles continued, the Millers and Dawes Points’ landscape has transformed into an up-market residential precinct in the centre of a global city for a new set of residents: the ‘new community’. As a result, the more marginalised sectors of society (i.e. ‘traditional community’) who possess fewer resources and money to resist these processes are no longer valued in this urban space.

Currently, the NSW government is in possession of expensive properties located in a highly sought after location. Rather than cater for the increasing need of social housing by retaining properties, Housing NSW has instead released them to the private real estate market with the proviso that they come with 99-year leases rather than as free hold (the 99-year leases used as a territorial strategy is discussed in Section 6.2.3.4). Through these leases, the state

11 Housing NSW has identified the following risk factors that allowed individuals to be eligible for priority housing: ‘Domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse or neglect, threatening behaviour by one or more household members against another occupant, torture or trauma’ (Housing NSW 2012). 154 government has participated in the ‘production’ of gentrification in Millers and Dawes Points (as discussed in Chapter 2, Section 2.2.3). Housing NSW has enacted Smith’s (1979; 1982; 1986; 1987a) ‘rent gap’ by realising the significant economic potential of this prime real estate (Smith’s (1979; 1982; 1986; 1987a) ‘rent gap’ was explained in Chapter 2, Section 2.2.3).

Through the 99-year leases, Housing NSW has assisted the re-imaging of Millers and Dawes Points from a working class location to an elite housing precinct by having made housing in the area more accessible to members of the new community and less accessible to residents of the traditional community. This territorial act has assisted the overall gentrification of Millers and Dawes Points as a location, which has resulted in decreasing numbers of social housing residents being able to afford to live in an area due to a reduction in availability. The offset of this territorial strategy is that by re-creating the area as a space for the new community, the government has simultaneously threatened the traditional community’s sense of belonging to place. The ability to foster strong social bonds that protect the traditional community’s identity and their senses of place has become increasingly difficult to maintain as fewer members of the traditional community stay in the area (see Chapter 4, Section 5.2.4). Without these social bonds and with the population of the traditional community declining, their senses of place will diminish.

6.2.2 Promoting a new vision for Millers and Dawes Points In line with Sack’s (1986, 28) second interdependent relationship of territoriality (‘communication’), the government has expressed that social housing is no longer a valuable or required resource in Millers and Dawes Points. This section considers how the government has communicated the idea that traditional community have become unsuitable in the re-imaged Millers and Dawes Points by using territorial actions.

6.2.2.1 Governmental management: Lessons from the past and present Residents of the traditional community have indicated that they have reason to be suspicious of the current government’s actions based on the actions of past governments (regardless of political party). For example, Fitzgerald and Keating (1991) have argued that the government used the plague that struck Sydney in 1900 as a legitimate excuse to gain control of a significant portion of Sydney’s foreshore (as discussed in Chapter 4, Section 4.4). Agreeing with Fitzgerald and Keating (1991), one resident of the traditional community 155 explained that there was a clear cycle of government disregard towards the original occupants of social housing: ‘[The sales of social housing are] another land grab ... same as the [housing] clearances in 1900 following the phoney plague scare’ (Survey Respondent #34). These land resumptions were a form of territorial action designed to allow the government to gain control of the area.

More recently, the NSW government has once again sought to gain financial advantage by limiting the provision of social housing in Millers and Dawes Points. For example, the sales of social housing have indicated the government’s vision to reduce the supply of social housing in the area. Many residents of the traditional community believed that the government has acted unfairly simply for the revenue hoped to be gained in return (these views are further discussed in Section 6.2.3). Further to this, residents have predicted that the cycle of housing loss will continue to evolve, leading to the eviction and eventual demise of the traditional community, as this resident from the traditional community expressed: ‘And they [the government] will continue to do it [sell off social housing] because the land is so valuable’ (Respondent #12, 25 March 2011). If this cycle of housing loss gains momentum, the traditional community will further decline in numbers. With fewer members of the traditional community left to maintain the ‘urban village’ atmosphere, their sense of belonging to Millers and Dawes Points will continue to be eroded away along with their senses of place.

Along with the land resumptions during the plague, I argue that the 99-year leases (an arrangement known as the ‘sell offs’) are another example of the government regulating access to its resources (the 99-year leases as a territorial strategy are further discussed in Section 6.2.3.4). The 99-year leases allow the government to achieve its vision for the area that shifts away from the provision of social housing. The prospect of financial gain from the leases has far outweighed any commitment to the provision of affordable and low cost accommodation. In many ways, this was an expression of the perceived redundancy of social housing and its occupants (the traditional community) in an era of globalising neo-liberal governance. To explore how the government has further communicated its vision for Millers and Dawes Points, Box 6.1 chronicles the most crucial facts and events that have led to the sales of social housing in the area.

156

Box 6.1: Chronology of successive NSW governments’ management of social housing in Millers and Dawes Points. Uncertainties over the future of social housing in Millers and Dawes Points appeared in local media as early as 1989 when a small selection of commercial and residential properties were put to the private real estate market (as discussed in Chapter 4, Section 4.6.1) (Bita 1989). Fifteen years later in 2004, Housing NSW chose three of the most decrepit properties in Millers and Dawes Points (all of which were commercial properties not suitable for residential tenants) and released them to the private market (Goodsir 2004). During this time, Housing NSW promised that ‘no sales were being contemplated for the residential homes’ and that ‘proceeds from these leases will help to fund upgrading works on residential public housing properties in the local area, helping to improve the quality of public housing in the Millers Point and The Rocks area’ (Goodsir 2004, 7). At this point, many residents suspected that more social housing in Millers and Dawes Points would also be put to the private market (Goodsir 2004). In 2006, rumours surfaced that indicated 190 properties were earmarked to go to the private market due to reforms in social housing delivery (Wainwright 2006). Following this, Housing NSW conceded that ‘up to’ 16 residential dwellings would also be released as 99-year leases in Millers and Dawes Points (Norrie and Pearlman 2006, 1). Housing NSW rationalised its actions by stating that the sales of such leases would partly fund the construction of social housing homes in Sydney’s inner west12 (known as the Inner West Housing Strategy).

In June 2008, the then Minister for Housing, Matt Brown, openly acknowledged that he would ‘consider’ selling leases for approximately half the existing social housing homes in Millers and Dawes Points (Creagh 2008c). Only two months later, the next Housing Minister13 quelled the community’s fears by stating that the sale of leases were a ‘one-off’ occurrence and that no further properties would be sold (Creagh 2008b). In November of 2008, the promised ‘one-off’ 16 social housing dwellings were put to auction in the private market with the Minister for Housing describing the event as ‘the first lot of heritage properties in Millers Point up for lease’ (Minister for Housing 2008, 1, emphasis added). Over time, 24 more properties were also sold as 99-year leases (Tovey 2010b).

As of 2010, A$18 million had been raised to fund the Inner West Housing Strategy (Housing NSW 2010b). In July 2010, Housing NSW announced that a further 20 social housing properties in Millers and Dawes Points would again be released to the private market also in the form of a 99-year lease over several years (Department of Human Services 2010). Housing NSW released a statement about profits from the sale; which were to be invested in the Cowper Street Glebe Affordable Housing redevelopment project14 (Housing NSW 2010b). By 2011, the profits from social housing sales contributed A$34.13 million from 16

12 Sydney’s inner west was chosen for additional social housing due to its proximity to services and transport (Minister for Housing 2008). Under the Strategy, A$60.2 million of Housing NSW’ budget would be spent redeveloping ageing social housing sites in the inner west over two and a half years (Housing NSW 2008b). 13 The Minister for Housing, Matthew Brown, was succeeded by David Borger in September of 2008. Both Ministers represented the same political party. 14 The Cowper Street Glebe Affordable Housing Redevelopment Project is part of the Inner West Housing Strategy. 157 properties sold in Millers and Dawes Points (Central Magazine 2011) to fund 153 new homes and housing stock refurbishment for the Inner West Housing Strategy (Department of Human Services 2010).

Box 6.1 details the inconsistencies between the promises made by the government and the actions later carried out. The remainder of this section documents the responses by members of the traditional community, who have argued that the government’s agenda to rid the area of social housing is clear. I explain that the government has undertaken several actions that when combined have pushed the sale of around 39 social housing properties to date (in 2013). Apart from pushing sales, the government has downplayed the sales of publicly owned property to assuage resident fears. I explain that the government has attempted to justify its actions by promoting the idea that profits from the sales will fund social housing projects elsewhere. However, this act of territoriality has not quelled the traditional community’s fears of eviction.

In 2004, the government declared that ‘no sales were being contemplated for ... residential homes’, which was not a promise that guaranteed sales would not be contemplated in the future (Goodsir 2004, 7). By 2006, this ambiguity became clear when many more properties (particularly residential ones) were chosen for sale on the private market. This prompted concerns from residents of the traditional community about the security of their tenure into the future. Resident fears were heightened in 2006 when a journalist from the Sydney Morning Herald asked a representative from Housing NSW about plans for the remainder of Millers and Dawes Points’ social housing. The representative’s evasive response was: ‘There is currently one commercial property available for lease in Millers Point’ (Wainwright 2006, 7). During this time, the government also released a statement about investing profits made from the sell-offs back into social housing to improve existing housing stock within the Millers and Dawes Points areas more generally. However, no proceeds of the sales have yet been put towards Millers and Dawes Points’ social housing as the government has instead redirected funds to the Inner West Housing Strategy (Department of Human Services 2010). While the government’s strategy was to appear to be acting in the best interests of social housing as a whole, several residents of the traditional community have expressed their dismay at this compromise. Members of the traditional community believed that at least some profits from the sales should be returned to rehabilitate Millers and Dawes Points’ heritage properties. One resident from the traditional community stated: ‘The money raised

158

[from the sell offs] should be spent on fixing up [social] housing in The Rocks, Millers Point and Dawes Point areas’ (Survey Respondent #157), which is clearly not the case.

It would appear that the Inner West Housing Strategy has been used as a decoy by the government to distract attention from selling social housing homes in the inner city. As the government has redirected funds raised from Sydney’s inner city to Sydney’s inner west to ‘fund the development of more appropriate housing’, social housing stock is lost to Millers and Dawes Points (the value of re-locating social housing in the inner city is further discussed in Section 6.3.1) (Housing NSW 2011a, 1). In response to the Inner West Housing Strategy, one resident of the traditional community stated:

[The 99-year leases are an] unnecessary money grab and plan to move [social housing] residents to western suburb ghettoes. Why couldn’t they [Housing NSW] spend the money on [improving the remaining] Millers Point [social housing] properties? (Survey Respondent #26).

The Mayor of Sydney, Clover Moore, concurred with residents of the traditional community: ‘I don’t believe more affordable housing should be created [in Sydney’s inner west] at the expense of selling your [Millers and Dawes Points social housing] homes’ (Tovey 2010c).

Another discrepancy between the government’s promises and actions has been the number of social housing properties put to the private market. In 2006, ‘up to’ 16 properties were initially assured even though by 2010 a further 20 properties were made privately available (Norrie and Pearlman 2006, 1). Furthermore, between 2006 and 2010, the government seemed to contradict itself when the Minister(s) for Housing relayed mixed messages that ranged from major portions of social housing properties being sold (Creagh 2008c) to no further sales in the area (Creagh 2008b).

With six years of consecutive property sales, the government effectively promoted its vision for the area to Millers and Dawes Points’ communities through the gradual release of properties over time. At first, the government made only three properties privately available in order to gauge the value of the properties on the real estate market and predict how much revenue might be attainable through further sales. This decision was pivotal given the unique circumstances surrounding the three properties for sale, that is, they were all heritage listed

159

(requiring major renovations) and on 99-year leases. Once valid sales figures were determined via the sales of the three properties, the government incrementally released another 36 dwellings over the course of six years. By gradually releasing properties, the government made certain it would not over saturate the real estate market to avoid internal competition between properties and therefore increase real estate values for maximum returns. The added benefit to this approach was that the government reduced the magnitude of community resistance to the sales by not releasing all 39 properties at once. By lessening resident opposition to the sales of social housing, Housing NSW has more efficiently territorialised Millers and Dawes Points.

The government also avoided accountability for any decisions made now or in the future concerning the sales of social housing. In 2010, the future of Millers and Dawes Points’ social housing remained unclear when the Minister for Housing would not reveal how many more dwellings would be sold (Tovey 2010c). Not surprisingly, with such uncertainty regarding the future of their homes, the traditional community’s fears reached fever pitch (Scott 2010). The government, under increasing pressure by social housing residents, was forced to confirm that no social housing tenants would be evicted as part of the leasing off strategy (Scott 2010). However, some members of the traditional community were all too aware of the government’s previous actions and believed that they have been deceived, and that the cycle of deceit would continue. One respondent of the traditional community noted:

It’s not even paranoia playing it up, it [selling off social housing] was a plan of the general idea of the way to do it. It was a long-term decision [of the government] (Respondent #12, 25 March 2011).

In summary, the government used territorial approaches to quell resident fears whilst pushing its new vision for Millers and Dawes Points that is increasingly free of social housing. The government attempted to achieve this by incrementally releasing properties, redirecting funding to other social housing projects and by deceiving the community by not revealing the numbers of social housing that would be released for sale. Although the government’s motives and actions were far from ambiguous, it has not officially conceded that the leases were part of a long-term strategy to rid Millers and Dawes Points of social housing and its tenants. As this cycle does not appear to be slowing, the repercussions for Millers and Dawes

160

Points are alarming. Resident fears further escalated when Housing NSW used administrative scare tactics discussed below.

6.2.2.2 Administrative scare tactics In this section, I examine the administrative scare tactics Housing NSW used to further promote that social housing was (and remains) an unwanted presence in Millers and Dawes Points. Such tactics include the ways representatives from Housing NSW have conducted the sell offs and the ways they have dealt with the traditional community’s concerns. This section also analyses how Housing NSW attempted to use the fear of eviction as a scare tactic. This section concludes by examining how Housing NSW has targeted some of the most vulnerable members of Sydney’s urban population. Such territorial strategies have and continue to threaten the traditional community’s hold on place, and their ongoing senses of place.

The relationship between Millers and Dawes Points’ social housing residents and Housing NSW is strained as members of the traditional community have found Housing NSW unapproachable and its administrators uncooperative. Some residents of the traditional community felt they had been treated with disrespect, as this resident remarked:

It’s like the people don’t have rights. They just don’t count because [Housing NSW think that we are] ... not rate payers, probably don’t even vote ... [Housing NSW sent a letter saying:] ‘we need to send people to do an inspection of the building’ ... They didn’t even turn up. I was furious. They [Housing NSW] think we’re just people on benefits who’ve got nothing better to do [with our time] (Respondent #8, 30 June 2010).

Members of the traditional community also felt intimidated by Housing NSW’ representatives. For example, several residents expressed a sense of dread when having to deal with Housing NSW, and in some cases, even postponed or disregarded maintenance on their properties to avoid dealing with the department (Elliott 2007). The traditional community’s reluctance to approach Housing NSW means that the strategy of appearing to be an unapproachable authority has been successful. With fewer tenants contacting the department about housing repairs, Housing NSW has reduced the frequency of social housing maintenance, which has hastened the state of disrepair (this is further discussed in Section

161

6.2.3.1). The outcome of this strategy can be observed in the landscape where Millers and Dawes Points once contained a local office for Housing NSW, which has since been closed and absorbed into Housing NSW’ head office in Surry Hills15. One resident of the traditional community described the inconvenience created by this relocation:

Now we have to trek all the way up to Surry Hills and it’s at the top of the hill. I’m thinking [about] elderly people [who are less able to walk that far]; it’s in a shocking position [location]. And the amount of staff that would have manned this area has shrunk (Respondent #7, 25 March 2011).

Similar to when Housing NSW gauged the value of Millers and Dawes Points’ social housing properties by slowly releasing them to the private market, Housing NSW also gauged resident reactions to further sell offs. In July of 2010, Housing NSW sent letters to Millers and Dawes Points’ social housing residents, which stated that some tenants ‘could be asked to relocate to other Housing NSW accommodation’ if their home was next in line to be sold off (Tovey 2010c). A resident from the traditional community described the incident:

[Housing NSW] offered a number of people in Argyle Place the chance to move; [they were] sent letters. They [representatives from Housing NSW] even approached the doctor saying ‘ are you interested in retiring soon?’ So they were even making inroads. So if they can get the doctor, that’s another chip [away at the traditional community through diminished service provision] 16 (Respondent #12, 25 March 2011).

In line with Sack’s (1986, 28) second interdependent relationship of territoriality (‘communication’), the letters sent to social housing residents added another layer to the government’s expression about the traditional community as out-of-place in the newly envisioned Millers and Dawes Points. Predictably, the letter from Housing NSW initiated an outcry from residents (Tovey 2010c). Housing NSW responded by stating that no resident would be evicted and that only vacant properties would be included in the sell offs (Tovey 2010c). With residents of the traditional community all too aware of Housing NSW’ trend of

15 Surry Hills is located 3.69km from Millers and Dawes Points. 16 Dr Shearer is the last bulk billing general practitioner left in Millers and Dawes Points and has been a part of the community for many years. The traditional community believed that the fabric of the local community would suffer with Dr Shearer’s absence. 162 not keeping its promises, the rise in vacancies as older residents depart/die along with the attrition of social housing in Millers and Dawes Points is likely to continue.

Housing NSW has expressed its reluctance to preserve the traditional community’s presence in Millers and Dawes Points by use of a strategy that targeted some of the most vulnerable members of Sydney’s urban population. That is, social housing residents experienced multiple levels of disadvantage due to the sell offs. Many social housing residents required the services of Housing NSW due a range of traumatic circumstances that may include homelessness. Housing NSW’ actions (such as the letter that threatened to evict tenants from their homes) had placed additional stress on these already marginalised households as the sell offs threatened a basic element that individuals need to survive: a home. In addition, many social housing residents were already under stresses that were exacerbated by low levels of financial resources for court proceedings, and a lack of political standing to oppose the actions of large government departments such as Housing NSW. One resident from the traditional community explained the fragility of some members of the traditional community:

Take [my neighbour]; she’s 95 ... What if they [Housing NSW] said to her ‘We’re going to give you a new place’. How is she going to move to Campbelltown17? ... She’d be that frightened. A lot of the oldies around here as soon as you mention the sell off [they will respond:] ‘Oh where are they going to put me, I wouldn’t know where to go’. It’s scaremongering (Respondent #4, 21 March 2011).

As the older generation of residents who were involved in Millers and Dawes Points’ maritime trade continue to decline, so too does community resistance to the sell offs. This resident from the traditional community explained:

[The] more maritime related people that leave [Millers and Dawes Points], the less hold they [the traditional community] have on the area. And the less interest of [local residents] to keep it [Millers and Dawes Points’ community] as is (Respondent #7, 25 March 2011).

17 Campbelltown is located 43km from Millers and Dawes Points. Respondent #4 considered that relocating social housing residents to Campbelltown would be far enough away for relocated tenants to become disorientated with their new surroundings. 163

To further promote its vision for Millers and Dawes Points, Housing NSW began to use Millers and Dawes Points’ housing as emergency or priority housing according to residents of the traditional community (see Chapter 5, Section 5.2.4.1.2). In some cases, these new social housing tenants have drug dependencies and/or mental health issues as observed by members of the traditional community (as discussed in Chapter 5, Section 5.2.4.1.2). The act of introducing individuals into Millers and Dawes Points who require priority housing has been another act of territoriality by Housing NSW. When the government brought in these new groups of social housing tenants, it exacerbated the area’s stigmatised status and delivered another blow to the traditional community’s long established senses of place and connections to Millers and Dawes Points. Some residents of the traditional community believed that introducing these new social housing tenants was another territorial tactic undertaken by Housing NSW to purposefully disrupt the social cohesion of the traditional community. One resident from the traditional community explained this territorial tactic:

So it [bringing in priority housing residents] was almost another way [Housing NSW] is bringing in elements that people would be uncomfortable with ... So again I think it’s a deliberate decision by [Housing NSW] ... to attack the community (Respondent #2, 21 September 2010).

The influx of these new social housing residents has further diluted the proportion of the traditional community in Millers and Dawes Points to newcomers. Compounded by the sell offs, the traditional community’s members have felt increasingly threatened as their hold on place has been continually undermined. With a new cohort of social housing residents entering Millers and Dawes Points, there will be few left to defend the perceived more meaningful connections to place (as discussed in Chapter 5, Section 5.2.4.1).

While the sell offs have unsettled some residents, non-actions by Housing NSW have caused further concerns. For example, the absence of a publicly available long-term strategy for Millers and Dawes Points’ social housing has provoked residents of the traditional community to anticipate the ‘worst’ possible outcome: eviction from their homes. While Housing NSW has made some guarantees, it has not detailed plans for Millers and Dawes Points’ social housing and nor have the promises (such as the ones stated in Box 6.1) held

164 much substance amongst members of the traditional community. This member of the traditional community noted:

The insidious thing is with this area is that the government aren’t upfront about it [i.e. the plans for Millers and Dawes Points’ social housing]. They won’t give us any details ... They are doing it so underhandedly and they have been doing it for years ... Here [in Millers and Dawes Points] it’s been more of an insidious lying process that’s just unconscionable really (Respondent #12, 25 March 2011).

Although the government has never released an official statement about the removal of social housing (and therefore, the traditional community) from Millers and Dawes Points, it has still managed to express that social housing does not belong in the area. As shown during the years of the plague in the 1900s, decision makers in government are capable of using whatever means necessary to assume control of valuable urban spaces such as Millers and Dawes Points, in inner Sydney. The government’s management of social housing in the area to date has earned itself a reputation of mistrust amongst the locals. By using administrative scare tactics, Housing NSW has expressed its aversion to maintaining social housing in the area. Housing NSW has maintained a front of un-approachability, non-cooperation and silence. It has also brought in tenants perceived as ‘undesirable’ by residents of the traditional community.

This section has demonstrated that the government’s territorial strategies have successfully communicated that social housing and its residents are unsuitable in the new upmarket version of Millers and Dawes Points. These strategies reflect Sack’s (1986, 28) second interdependent relationship of territoriality (‘communication’).

6.2.3 Governmental enforcement of a new vision for Millers and Dawes Points Sack’s (1986, 32) third and final interdependent relationship of territoriality is ‘enforcing control’. I draw on this facet of territoriality to describe how the government has exercised its control over numbers of residents living in Millers and Dawes Points. This section explores another set of territorial strategies, which included neglecting social housing properties whilst also leaving them untenanted for extended periods. Other territorial strategies included the placement of renovated properties for ‘sale’ on 99-year leases (known 165 locally as the ‘sell offs’). I also demonstrate that the culmination of these strategies have threatened the traditional community’s hold on place, which have continued to erode their connections to place and therefore their senses of place.

6.2.3.1 Social Housing: ‘Vandalism by neglect’ One of the main concerns expressed by members of the traditional community was Housing NSW’ poor upkeep of social housing properties since it obtained management responsibilities from the Maritime Services Board in 1983. As discussed in Chapter 4 (Section 4.6.1), Housing NSW claimed that the major benefit of this transfer was that it could rehabilitate properties, which were neglected by previous management (Housing NSW 2007c) (this is further discussed in Section 6.2.3.4). In contrast to Housing NSW’ claim, members of the traditional community argued that property maintenance regressed when Housing NSW took control of social housing properties from the Maritime Services Board. One resident of the traditional community explained how the property transfer affected the management of social housing:

They [the Maritime Services Board] didn’t let them [Millers and Dawes Points’ social housing properties] deliberately deteriorate. They had their own slaters [roofing specialists]. If you had a leak, you could ring the [Maritime Services Board and] the next day ... experienced people [would come] who knew how to fix the slates up. Then [Housing NSW] came and sent apprentice plumbers up who broke more slates [rather than fix them] (Respondent #5, 21 March 2011).

Housing NSW’ maintenance of social housing properties in Millers and Dawes Points was generally perceived to be less than satisfactory by residents of the traditional community. This member of the traditional community described how the alleged neglect by Housing NSW has affected their living conditions:

I’ve heard horror stories from tenants where there’s been raw sewage in their backyards ... where they haven’t had an electric light in their bedroom for two years ... There’s an old tenant who can’t put her washing out on the clothes line because the steps leading up to her backyard/patio are so rotted they’re

166

dangerous and they’re broken ... And none of these things are addressed [by Housing NSW]. (Respondent #1, 9 September 2010).

Over time, social housing properties have had a wide range of compounded maintenance problems. Therefore, the results of poor maintenance standards are often easily detectable, as this resident of the traditional community observed:

That’s my friend’s house [see Figure 6.1 below]. That balcony has been held up by these chunks of wood ... for at least 10 years. It’s an old heritage listed place. It’s literally falling to pieces inside. There’s damp coming up through the walls and big chunks of plaster [missing] (Respondent #8, 30 June 2010).

167

Another resident of the traditional community described a common issue for an entire strip of social housing:

You walk down Kent Street and you see one particular terrace, where the guttering is being held up by a crutch, the guttering next door to it is so rusted out that there’s no point in having it. There are properties in Kent Street that don’t even have guttering (Respondent #1, 9 September 2010).

In line with Housing NSW’ strategy of being unapproachable (as discussed in Section 6.2.2.2), residents of the traditional community have noted that Housing NSW rarely respond to maintenance requests. This resident of the traditional community described their experiences in dealing with Housing NSW:

Years of it [dealing with Housing NSW], not days or months. The stress of having to ring and ring [telephone] and threaten tenancy tribunals, just to get some tiles on the wall. And the workmen they bring in, they’re cowboys, they’re arseholes (Respondent #12, 25 March 2011).

Many other residents readily recalled similar accounts (either through personal experience or local knowledge), which depicted Housing NSW’ reluctance to effectively manage the properties. This reluctance has been accompanied by other strategies that also delayed property maintenance. As the previous resident described, acquiring maintenance (however basic) required repeated requests to Housing NSW. In the event that Housing NSW responded to these requests, repairs and maintenance have not appeared to be on the agenda, as one individual from the traditional community explained:

... and our places are like Central [Railway] station [i.e. very busy]. We have Housing NSW staff come through, we have contractors come through, we have other types of Housing NSW staff come through, we have heritage people come through. They all take notes, they all take photographs, they all

168

write stuff down, but then nothing gets done [repaired] (Respondent #1, 9 September 2010).

As well as a feeling of harassment by Housing NSW (as relayed in the quote above), when repairs are undertaken, residents have also questioned the quality of the work, as this member of the traditional community stated:

A guy [social housing resident] complained about a gas leak so a guy came in with a sledgehammer and knocked a hole in every one of his walls looking for the gas leak and then left (Respondent #9, 12 October 2011).

Not surprisingly, substandard housing maintenance and general disregard for their houses (to the point of vandalism, as identified in the quote above) has angered the traditional community as some residents expressed that Housing NSW has acted unlawfully. For example, a member of the traditional community noted ‘the best way to describe Housing NSW’ [efforts at property maintenance] in Millers Points is ‘vandalism by neglect’. And that’s our [traditional community’s] catch cry at the moment’ (Respondent #1, 9 September 2010). Thus, some residents of the traditional community believed that Housing NSW’ inadequate upkeep of the properties is comparable to the illegal act of vandalism18.

The results of poor upkeep have left marks that are visible in the landscape (as shown by Figure 6.1). However, the results of poor maintenance have not been restricted to the façade of these homes, as many residents of the traditional community have dealt with poor living conditions within these properties each day. The effects of poorly maintained housing have served as constant reminders that the traditional community’s time is Millers and Dawes Points is limited.

By failing to maintain these properties, Housing NSW has effectively laid the foundations for the demise of Millers and Dawes Points’ social housing. However, several more steps are required for Housing NSW to bring to fruition its vision for Millers and Dawes Points, which are discussed in the following section.

18 The conditions of these properties described is considered illegal in NSW as it is compulsory for caretakers to repair gutters and drains to prevent structural damage (Tovey 2010a). 169

6.2.3.2 Untenanted social housing Housing NSW has gained further control of Millers and Dawes Points’ social housing by allowing properties to sit vacant for extended periods once occupants had voluntarily vacated the premises19. When some properties become vacant, Housing NSW has simply not re- tenanted them. Some social housing properties have sat vacant for periods that range from a few months to a decade or more (Wainwright 2006). Rather than occupy homes, Housing NSW has allowed some properties to sit boarded up for months at a time (Wainwright et al. 2006). The following photograph (Figure 6.2) depicts a home that was vacant before it was renovated and sold to the private residential market on a 99-year lease.

Figure 6.2: Looking North along Merriman Street, Millers Point. A vacated social housing property, with the words ‘abandoned’ and ‘squaters [sic] needed’ inscribed onto its grimy windows. The graffiti (of unknown author) alerted passers-by that the home was untenanted and available for (illegal) occupation. Source: 28-112mm zoom/digital/exp.auto/HK 2010

When properties are left untenanted, urgent renovations lapse and houses deteriorate much faster than if they were tenanted. In some cases, the social housing properties have reached such a state of disrepair that they have become uninhabitable (Elliott 2007). Figure 6.3 depicts the magnitude of this disrepair of social housing properties. Not tenanting homes is yet another territorial strategy deployed by Housing NSW. By allowing properties to remain

19 Tenants may vacate social housing for a wide range of reasons. These reasons may include (but are not limited to) tenants who no longer require social housing, tenants who relocate to other housing (social housing or otherwise) or death. 170 untenanted, their descent into disrepair is hastened. The derelict state of these properties then strengthens the argument that they should be released to the private market under a 99-year lease to ensure their heritage aspects are maintained. This strategy has allowed Housing NSW to avoid the high costs associated with heritage maintenance (see Box 6.1).

171

Figure 6.3: Various images of a social housing property located on Lower Fort Street put to the private real estate market on a 99-year lease. An inspection during viewing times revealed the severe state of disrepair both internal and external to the property. Major renovations are required such as the replacement of flooring, walls and ceilings. Source: 28-112mm zoom/digital/exp.auto/HK 2010

The ‘sell offs’ have been earmarked as part of a strategy to raise funds to build more social housing homes as part of the Inner West Housing Strategy. Despite this justification, some residents of the traditional community remained convinced that Housing NSW’ real motive is to sell off all social housing in Millers and Dawes Points:

What we think is happening is that they’ve [Housing NSW] allowed these [social housing] properties to deteriorate to such a degree that they aren’t viable for the tax payer to repair. So Housing NSW can now say: ‘look we can’t afford to maintain them, they’re surplus to our needs’ (Respondent #1, 9 September 2010).

In response to the alleged motives for the sales of social housing, in 2007 Mike Allen (director-general of Housing NSW) stated: ‘There’s no policy of deliberately letting places run down but it takes time to develop a plan that fits with the heritage obligations’ (Elliott 2007, 48). Twenty five years had passed between Housing NSW’ inheritance of Millers and Dawes Points’ social housing properties and the first sale. While New South Wales has experienced several changes of government during this period, some residents of the traditional community this is an irrelevant factor:

It [the sale of social housing properties] was foreseen [by the government] ... And bit by bit they’ve moved along with it, no matter what governments it’s been. Liberal or Labor [governments]. They know they have a huge nest egg in this area that they’re all desperate to get they’re grubby little hands on it [for economic returns] (Respondent #12, 25 March 2011).

Housing NSW’ failure to renovate the properties or even keep them tenanted has cemented some residents of the traditional community’s beliefs that selling off social housing was a long-term territorial strategy that would eventually rid Millers and Dawes Points of its social housing. One individual from the traditional community described how s/he initially doubted

172

Housing NSW’ motivations, but was then convinced the sell offs were a premeditated course of action: I just used to think it was paranoia and now I believe it’s a long-term thing [the government’s intention to continue selling social housing]. And it’s speeding up and taking on its own momentum and they’re [Housing NSW] getting away with more and the fact is they have the power to get away with it. It’s not moral, it’s not right what they’re doing (Respondent #7, 25 March 2011).

Leaving properties vacant for long periods has been an effective territorial strategy for two main reasons. First, it avoided the difficulty of removing existing tenants who might be reluctant to leave their homes. Second, it allowed the government to potentially evade any further negative publicity from the decision to sell off social housing properties. This resident from the traditional community explained:

The fact that the places have been empty for so long ... it is better publicity for [Housing NSW] to have the houses empty when they sell them so there isn’t bad publicity of ‘kicking’ people out (Respondent #2, 21 September 2010).

Leaving social housing vacant has further assisted the long-term strategy (of reducing social housing in Millers and Dawes Points) that Housing NSW has been accused of pursuing by residents of the traditional community. Since forcibly evicting social housing tenants would attract negative publicity, Housing NSW must wait for residents to voluntarily leave the premises. One member from the traditional community elaborated on this territorial approach: ‘And if that building becomes vacant it is sold off instantly [as a 99-year lease] ... establishing [the sales of social housing] ... slowly but surely’ (Respondent #6, 26 March 2011).

The government’s strategy of vacating properties (and not re-tenanting them), has assisted the achievement of its vision for Millers and Dawes Points. Housing NSW gained further control of social housing properties without the difficulty of evicting tenants and resultant negative media publicity. Housing NSW has released the capital locked within these properties by making them available to the private market. In summary, Housing NSW preferred to leave its social housing properties un-tenanted rather than house individuals who need social 173 housing. Once again, Housing NSW has reflected Sack’s (1986, 22) third interdependent relationship of territoriality (‘enforcing control’) by leaving social housing untenanted for extended periods.

Once social housing properties sit vacant, Housing NSW then realised increased financial returns may be achieved if some properties are renovated before sale on the private residential market. How members of the traditional community have responded to Housing NSW’ next territorial step is described in the following section.

6.2.3.3 Social housing renovations As part of the sell off strategy, Housing NSW has renovated some of the vacated social housing properties in Millers and Dawes Points before they were made available to the private residential market. The funding for these renovations were supplied by the 2010 NSW budget which allocated A$4.9 million specifically for these dwellings (Tovey 2010c). This process has unsettled members of the traditional community as it has become clear that renovations and maintenance have been largely reserved for vacant houses set to be released to the private market place, rather than general upkeep of tenanted homes. One member of the traditional community expressed:

The ones [social housing properties] that are earmarked for sale get done up [renovated]. There’s this woman living there and they were fixing up her place while she was living in it and they were doing a hackney [poor] job, and then she died, and then they fixed the place up all over again ... All completely redone again (Respondent #12, 25 March 2011).

Residents of the traditional community have also commented on Housing NSW’ practice of leaving newly renovated properties vacant for lengthy periods. As one resident of the traditional community observed:

Housing NSW renovate them [social housing properties] and them leave them vacant for four, five, six years drawing no income. They haven’t put them on the market and yet they’ve sat there renovated [and] empty [untenanted] (Respondent #1, 9 September 2010).

174

As Housing NSW has not been forthcoming in the strategies for the sell offs, the traditional community have no knowledge about which social housing properties will be chosen for long-term leases in the future. This lack of knowledge has left members of the traditional community not only frustrated with Housing NSW’ poor use of resources but also living in fear that their home may be targeted. One resident from the traditional community explained this fear:

A tenant [was] ... in tears because they are painting the row of terraces where she lives and she is now worried that they’re being done up [renovated] for sale. And no one [from Housing NSW] will tell her [about the future plans for her home], no one will tell us. Now this woman is going to bed at night, worried that her home of 30 years is going to be taken away from her (Respondent #1, 9 September 2010).

This resident believed that the authorisation of renovations was an indicator of another sell off. Some residents are now fearful that reporting maintenance may induce their own eviction by prompting Housing NSW to relocate residents (Tovey 2010a).

Leaving homes untenanted and renovated is another way Housing NSW has indicated that the traditional community does not belong in Millers and Dawes Points. In addition, residents of the traditional community have not been invited into the newly renovated properties that sit empty awaiting new occupants. For properties that existed untenanted (and in some cases also renovated), Housing NSW’ next territorial step is to release them to the private residential market in the form of a 99-year lease, which is discussed in the following section.

6.2.3.4 Ninety nine year lease conditions Housing NSW is faced with issues such as decreased funding, scarce social housing resources and lengthening waiting lists (as discussed in Chapter 1, Section 1.2). Millers and Dawes Points’ social housing properties have caused further financial problems for Housing NSW’ limited budget. For example, when Housing NSW first inherited the properties from the Maritime Services Board in 1983, the estimated backlog in maintenance was at A$30 million (Wainwright 2006). Since then, the properties have been added to four separate heritage registers, making maintenance more expensive than in 1983 as renovations must now meet heritage standards (Housing NSW 2011a). Over time, many of the properties have fallen into 175 decrepitude. Many properties are unsafe to live in and need major structural renovations (Housing NSW 2008b). It is the government’s contention that it does not possess the funds for the necessary renovations and maintenance (Housing NSW 2011a).

Housing NSW has absolved itself of the responsibility of maintaining and renovating properties by placing some social housing stock on 99-year leases for release on the private market. A major condition of purchase is that the new owner must restore and renovate properties in order to meet heritage requirements within two years (Goodsir 2004). The renovations must comply with conservation management plans, which have been created to ensure the properties are restored appropriately20 (Minister for Housing 2008). The 99-year leases have relieved Housing NSW from the financial burden of maintaining and renovating the properties to comply with heritage standards. Housing NSW has benefitted from the profits of the sales whilst also keeping government ownership of the properties (Housing NSW 2008b). Housing NSW has also gained from having some of their properties restored to meet heritage standards without supplying additional funds. Further information regarding the economics of 99-year leases is provided in Box 6.2.

Box 6.2: Snapshot of the 99-year leases. In Australia, land is mostly held under a freehold private ownership system (Geoscience Australia 2014). Recently, 99-year leases have become more common across Australian states with all of the Australian Capital Territory operating under a leasehold system (ACT Government 2012) and some areas of Queensland also available through 99-year leases (Queensland Government 2013). The 99-year leases offered on the social housing properties in Millers and Dawes Points are granted by Housing NSW (Housing NSW 2008a). As per the conditions of the lease, the individuals who purchase the leases are the ‘lessee’ and Housing NSW is the ‘lessor’ of the property. Therefore, Housing NSW retains legal ownership of the properties, not the lessee. Certain conditions must be met as part of the lease: the lessee must undertake regular conservation, uphold the Conservation Management Plan and provide architect reports that indicate approval of the restorations being undertaken to the property (Housing NSW 2008a). No reports have indicated that in the short term the

20 In addition, there are several legal conditions to the 99-year lease that purchasers must agree to. To ensure security for Housing NSW, the lessee must provide a bank guarantee that states they have funds to restore the properties to heritage standards within a set time frame (Housing NSW 2007a). For example, with some properties the lessee must spend at least A$400 000 over two years to meet the conditions of the conservation management plan (Creagh 2008a). Lessees also have the option of being able to on-sell the lease (Creagh 2008a). 176 special condition of a ‘99-year lease’ when ‘selling’ properties affect the local real estate pricing market. Lessees must pay a small nominal rent of A$1.00 per year, which has not appeared to reduce interest in the properties (Housing NSW 2008a). In the long term, Housing NSW remains in control of the properties and how they may be used.

The provision of the 99-year leases are an act of territoriality because they have guaranteed that social housing tenants will not occupy the now privatised real estate (at least not for 99- years). Housing NSW has ensured that Millers and Dawes Points will house a reduced number of social housing tenants for an extended period. Many residents of both the traditional and new communities predicted that the properties would continue to be occupied by private owners once these leases have expired. This resident of the new community gave reasoning for their prediction:

The whole of Europe works on 99-year leases, so very few people own land in parts of the world. We have an English legal system, we inherited the legal leasing arrangements, so what’s wrong with a 99-year lease? It’s just like having a mortgage to the bank really (Respondent #21, 7 October 2010).

In this section, I demonstrated how Housing NSW has enacted Sack’s (1986, 22) third interdependent relationship of territoriality (‘enforcing control’). Housing NSW has used strategies of territorialisation to gain further control of social housing in Millers and Dawes Points. I have shown that these territorial strategies have included property neglect in addition to leaving some properties untenanted for extended periods. Housing NSW has also placed a selection of social housing properties (including those untenanted and renovated) onto 99-year leases for sale on the private market. The combination of these territorial strategies has allowed Housing NSW to gain further control over how social housing is utilised in Millers and Dawes Points. By transferring these properties to the private market (and thus to new residents), NSW government has shifted its focus away from the provision of social housing to profiting from these dwellings. This shift has resulted in the gradual increase of a distinctly different demographic – the new community – entering Millers and Dawes Points. As social housing diminishes, the traditional community will gradually lose their hold on place. Without space to maintain these connections to Millers and Dawes

177

Points, the traditional community’s presence has and will continue to decline along with their senses of place.

In line with Sack’s (1986, 32) first interdependent relationship of territoriality (‘classification’), Part 1 of this chapter has described how the government has re-imaged Millers and Dawes Points as an act of classification through a process of re-classifying urban space from a working class precinct to an elite space. This re-imaging has occurred by reducing the proportion of social housing stock available within Millers and Dawes Points, which has enabled the new community increase its presence in the area. Sack (1986, 28) has explained that territoriality also involves ‘communica[ting]’ boundaries. The government has mirrored this facet of territoriality to express and promote its vision for Millers and Dawes Points via a range of strategies. Through the government’s management of social housing (in the past and present), it has made it clear that accommodating social housing residents in the area was a diminishing priority. Through these territorial actions, the traditional community have found Housing NSW’ representatives to be both uncooperative and unapproachable. Overall, the management of social housing in the area has generated a culture of mistrust amongst members of the traditional community. Other territorial strategies have enforced the government’s vision for Millers and Dawes Points, which reflected Sack’s (1986, 32) third and final interdependent relationship of territoriality (‘enforcing control’). For example, the conditions of some social housing properties have deteriorated to the extent where they can no longer be tenanted. Not maintaining social housing properties and releasing some to the private residential market has rendered the traditional community as increasingly marginalised in Millers and Dawes Points. The government has clearly conveyed to the traditional community that they do not belong in the area by treating social housing residents as an unvalued minority. The combination of these territorial strategies has placed limits on the future of the traditional community’s occupation within Millers and Dawes Points, and their senses of belonging to this urban place as their histories of belonging are gradually eroded. However, strategies that have effectively impinged on the traditional community’s senses of place have not been restricted to the government’s territorial efforts. Members of the new community, who have benefitted from the NSW state government’s new vision for Millers and Dawes Points, have also used or capitalised on several territorial strategies that have asserted their dominance over the landscape.

178

Part 2 6.3 Territoriality and the new community in Millers and Dawes Points This section describes the various ways residents of the new community have enacted their own set of strategies of territorialisation within Millers and Dawes Points. Such strategies have undermined the traditional community’s senses of belonging to this inner Sydney place. As with governmental territoriality, the new community’s territorial actions have also been analysed by drawing on Sack’s (1986) three interdependent relationships of territoriality. This section begins by analysing how the new community have mirrored Sack’s (1986, 32) first interdependent relationship of territoriality (‘classification’). I discuss how residents of the new community have assisted the re-imaging of Millers and Dawes Points. I show that Millers and Dawes Points’ restrictive real estate market has provided the conditions for this re-imaging. I demonstrate that the new community’s continued occupation of the area has entrenched their presence in the landscape. Based on Sack’s (1986, 28) second interdependent relationship of territoriality (‘communication’), I reveal how members of the new community have communicated their vision for the area, which includes supporting the sell offs of social housing. I detail how residents of the traditional community have responded to the new community’s claims over Millers and Dawes Points’ territory. This section concludes by exploring how residents of the new community have imitated Sack’s (1986, 32) third interdependent relationship of territoriality (‘enforcing control’). I detail how members of the new community have exercised their control by using and/or capitalising from territorialisation strategies that allow them to gain further control of Millers and Dawes Points landscape.

6.3.1 Re-imaging Millers and Dawes Points This section analyses the factors that have facilitated the new community’s residents’ re- imaging of Millers and Dawes Points as an act of ‘classification’ (Sack 1986, 28). I begin by examining how the real estate market in Millers and Dawes Points has become exclusionary high-end real estate, particularly with the re-imaging of old industrial sites. Other factors preventing individuals from living in the area, such as reduced government funding for social housing is also explored. I conclude by explaining how the real estate market in Millers and Dawes Points has provided the conditions to enable members of new community to become more visible and thus, entrench their presence within the landscape at the expense of the traditional community.

179

The escalation of property prices in Sydney’s inner city (including Millers and Dawes Points) has resulted in low to medium income earners being priced out of the market. In 2007-08, Millers and Dawes Points’ apartments prices steadily increased by 15.25 percent (Maguire 2008). By 2009, reports emerged stating that Millers and Dawes Points21 were the ninth easiest inner city suburbs to find a rental property22 (Robinson 2009), which indicated that the area’s unaffordability for low to medium income earners has led to higher vacancy rental rates. Property values also increased over 2010 where Millers Point’s23 apartments has become some of the most expensive in Sydney (Campion 2010). In 2011, the sale prices of properties increased by 25 percent, particularly along Kent Street where more than 200 sales occurred24 (Campion 2011). More recently, the President of the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales, Christian Payne, noted that inner Sydney’s rental market has been tightening25 (Real Estate Institute of New South Wales 2012). Christian Payne has stated that tenants looking for rental properties ‘will find it difficult to secure a property in the foreseeable future’ (Real Estate Institute of New South Wales 2012).

The difficulty that low to medium income earners have in gaining access to affordable housing in Millers and Dawes Points is compounded by other factors. As explained in Section 6.2.1, the state government has reduced funding for social housing, which has decreased the overall supply of social housing stock (Morris 2010). The state government has opted to assist individuals in gaining entry into the private real estate market through programs such as ‘Rental Assistance’ (National Shelter and Australian Council of Social Service 2003). As affordability (or lack thereof) is a determinant of residence in Millers and Dawes Points, it must follow that the removal of social housing will result in members of the traditional community needing to find alternative housing, and probably elsewhere. This would herald the end of the Millers and Dawes Points’ ‘traditional community’.

As the sell offs in Millers and Dawes Points have kept pace with escalating real estate prices, social housing, and its residents, have become a less visible presence in the area. On the other hand, members of the new community have had the financial capacity to purchase or

21 Millers and Dawes Points along with Haymarket, Sydney, The Rocks and Sydney South (Robinson 2009). 22 With a 10.6 percent vacancy rate (Robinson 2009). 23 Millers Point along with Point Piper and Milsons Point (Campion 2010). 24 The vast increase in real estate prices has been linked to the new Barangaroo development, which will be constructed nearby (Campion 2011). 25 Vacancy rates were down 0.6 percent from September 2012 to October 2012 (Real Estate Institute of New South Wales 2012). 180 rent properties in the area. This influx of members of the new community has assisted the re- imaging of Millers and Dawes Points from a working-class industrial/maritime landscape, to a contemporary, affluent post-industrial residential space that is networked into the global city through employment. As sell-offs and redevelopment continue, the reimaging of this urban place will become entrenched – and attract more new residents. Therefore, this urban space has been re-imaged and re-‘classified’ (Sack 1986, 28) with the assistance of the new incumbents.

6.3.2 The new community’s vision for Millers and Dawes Points Data gathered for this thesis through the administration of the survey instrument supports Sack’s (1986, 28) second interdependent relationship of territoriality (‘communication’), which has been enacted by residents of the new community. In this section, I show how members of the new community have communicated their vision for Millers and Dawes Points by supporting of the social housing sales because they believed they were more entitled to this territory (this support was previously discussed in Chapter 5, Section 5.3.1.1). I revisit the rationales for the new community’s support of the sell offs, but also explain how members of the traditional community have responded to these arguments. I conclude by considering the ways that members of the new community have benefitted from having communicated their vision for Millers and Dawes Points.

Members of the new community have indicated in the survey conducted for this thesis that social housing does not belong in Millers and Dawes Points as the majority of the new community indicated they were in favour of the sales (see Figure 6.4). As described in Chapter 5 Section 5.3.1.1, residents of the new community provided many reasons as to why they believed social housing should be removed from Millers and Dawes Points. For example, several members of the new community explained that social housing was not economically feasible in Millers and Dawes Points, as this resident expressed:

It doesn’t make financial sense to provide [social housing] in this area [Millers and Dawes Points]. Those people who feel they have some God given right to have housing provided for them here are selfish, unrealistic and arguably delusional (Survey Respondent #413).

181

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

Response to Social Housing Sales Traditional Community

New Community

Figure 6.4 (also Figure 5.7): Resident views towards the social housing sell offs in Millers and Dawes Points.

One resident of the new community asserted that the traditional community were not deserving of living in Sydney’s inner city: ‘Unless the [social housing] residents want to work in corporate jobs in the city, they might be better off in [the] suburbs’ (Survey Respondent #163). These comments indicate that for some members of the new community, their ideal vision for Millers and Dawes Points would include limiting the area to individuals who could afford to live in the area and for those who can financially contribute to inner Sydney’s commerce.

In response to the views of the new community, members of the traditional community have raised concerns about restricting Millers and Dawes Points to a higher socio-economic demographic. This member from the traditional community explained: ‘[Social housing]

182 provides a relief value in an overheated [property] market. It provides people with the ability to live and work affordably in the city’ (Survey Respondent #5). Another resident of the traditional community stated: ‘It’s [social housing in Millers and Dawes Points] how it should remain. The rich can afford to live somewhere else’ (Survey Respondent #18). Members of the traditional community believed that given social housing’s long-term presence and affordability in Millers and Dawes Points, it should remain there. Since members of affluent households can afford to choose to reside wherever they wish, social housing residents have objected to the takeover of public assets that have been set aside for marginalised individuals (Creagh 2008c). Thus, the traditional community’s residents felt that Millers and Dawes Points should not be converted into wealthy households.

Members of the traditional community have also argued that the attempts to re-image Millers and Dawes Points would reinforce the socio-economic disparity that already exists in the area. This resident of the traditional community described how living in Sydney’s inner city and in turn being in close proximity to resources has benefitted her/his standard of living:

There are many activities [in the inner city] – social and recreational, which [are accessible to] low income families [living in the area] ... [Living in the inner city] provides choice and enables kids to mix in wider communities ... which has greatly enriched my children’s world view (Survey Respondent #24).

Another resident from the traditional community similarly stated:

[Social housing should remain in Millers and Dawes Points] so the poor can benefit from living close to public facilities ... [social housing will stimulate] better integration between the lower, middle and upper class (Survey Respondent #1726).

The concern here is that forcing social housing out of inner city areas will accentuate the divide between the rich and poor whilst also reinforcing cycles of disadvantage (Forrest and Murie 1988). For example, relocating tenants to city fringes can create a polarised city where social housing tenants live away from employment rich areas (Elliott 2007). Extended travel

26 Please refer to Appendix I (Table 2) to view the socio-economic attributes of Respondent #17. 183 time to work may provoke labour shortages of low to medium paid workers who service the CBD (Berry 2003). This labour shortage eventuates as the site of employment is too distanced from the employees’ home residence. Therefore, the cost of public or private transportation (that may require paying for parking) and commuting time is too cost prohibitive for low paid workers (Berry 2003). In addition, excluding social housing tenants from the inner city also distances them from the vast resources provided by inner cities such as health care.

Residents of the new community have rationalised their vision for Millers and Dawes Points by explaining that the area is over populated by social housing tenants (as discussed in Chapter 5, Section 5.3.1.1). They have argued (along with the then Minister for Housing, David Borger) that social housing must be reduced to achieve a more balanced socio- economic mix27. However, arguments in favour of social mixing may be considered limited and superficial as the existing residents of Millers and Dawes Points (i.e. residents of the traditional community) are not considered as part of the newly re-imaged social mix due to the sales of social housing in which they live.

By reducing the quantity of social housing, members of the new community believed that Millers and Dawes Points would avoid the negative stereotypes dedicated to large social housing estates (as discussed in Chapter 5, Section 5.3.1.1). For example, crime is often perceived to be affiliated with social housing (Morris 2010) and is also the case with Millers and Dawes Points (as displayed in Figure 6.5). In reality, Millers and Dawes Points has proven to be an area with a ‘very low’ crime rate28 (Tovey 2010a, 4). Moreover, a representative from the City of Sydney Council29 has commented on Millers and Dawes Points’ uncharacteristically low crime rate:

Housing [NSW] have used the argument that it’s [the sell offs] about creating a better mix, which I think is nonsense because there are so few [crime-

27 The then Minister for Housing, David Borger, estimated that Housing NSW owned up to 80 percent of properties in Millers and Dawes Points (Minister for Housing 2008) (as discussed in Chapter 5, Section 5.3.1.1). 28 According to Local Government Area Hotspot Maps in 2010, Millers and Dawes Points had no reports of assault (alcohol related), assault (non-domestic violence related), break and enter dwelling, graffiti, robbery, motor vehicle theft or steal from person. ‘Low’ rates were recorded for malicious damage to property and steal from dwelling. And ‘low to high’ rates were recorded for break and enter (non-dwelling), assault (domestic violence related) and theft from a motor vehicle (NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research 2010). 29 The City of Sydney Council is an elected governing body designed to ‘provide a large scope of commercial, residential, community and cultural services’ at the local level (City of Sydney Council 2013). 184

related] issues down there [Millers and Dawes Points] compared to other [social housing] concentrations. So I think it’s purely a money grabbing exercise ... Housing [NSW] tends to pick and choose how it uses social mix to suit its own agenda (City of Sydney Council Respondent, 28 March 2011).

Therefore, the new community’s fears of crime (in association with social housing tenants, see Figure 6.5) are relatively unfounded as crime is reported no more frequently (on average) than other Sydney suburbs, with or without the presence of social housing (NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research 2010).

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

Concerns About Social Housing New Community

Figure 6.5 (also Figure 5.8): The new community’s concerns about social housing residents30.

While many members of the new community have clearly demonstrated their support for the sell offs, this support did not extend publicly, with a notable absence in the local media. I described in Chapter 3 (Section 3.3) that the anonymity provided by the survey instrument allowed for more candid responses amongst social housing residents (McGuirk and O'Neill

30 Data used for Figure 6.5 was obtained from Question 16 of survey instrument (see Appendix V). 185

2010). This anonymity also proved to be beneficial for residents of the new community as they were able to provide their views about the sell offs anonymously, but they have not been forthcoming about their views in public (for example, residents have not actively campaigned in support of the sell offs). Therefore, members of the new community have thus far demonstrated their support for the government’s new vision for Millers and Dawes Points: that social housing does not belong in the area. However, this position has been stated in anonymity.

In this section, I have demonstrated that members of the new community do not support the existence of social housing in Millers and Dawes Points. The new community’s residents ‘communicat[ed]’ that selling off social housing would be of economic benefit and that it would balance the socio-economic demographics in the area (1986, 28). In contrast, many residents of the traditional community argued that retaining social housing in Millers and Dawes Points is essential and would be a more equitable distribution of resources. While members of the new community have been overwhelmingly supportive of the social housing sales, they have only communicated this support privately through the survey instrument. By not engaging in overt communication measures (such as public campaigns supporting the sales), residents of the new community have avoided confronting their neighbours.

6.3.3 New community exercises control over Millers and Dawes Points Members of the new community have gained further control over Millers and Dawes Points by using territorial methods in line with Sack’s (1986, 22) third interdependent relationship of territoriality (‘enforcing control’). This section is concerned with the territorial methods used (and/or capitalised on) by members of the new community to indicate their perceived right to reside the area. I begin with an analysis of how external environmental factors (both natural and built) have assisted the new community to enact territorialisation strategies in Millers and Dawes Points. Following this, I explore the new community’s territorial measures, which have included place-naming strategies. I also analyse how the architecture purchased by members of the new community has limited interactions with members of the traditional community. I argue that these territorial strategies have normalised the presence of the new community at the expense of the traditional community. These territorial strategies are aiding a decline in the population size of the traditional community. This decline thereby reduces the public visibility of the traditional community, and the association the traditional community have with the place. I also provide examples of how the new community’s 186 strategies of place making have worked against the traditional community members’ senses of place. I conclude by exploring how the new community’s territorial methods have also reduced their (misplaced) fears of crime.

6.3.3.1 Re-shaping the new version of Millers and Dawes Points Several external factors have preserved Millers and Dawes Points as a residential precinct within a major global city. These factors have included several built structures in addition to the natural topography of the area. In this section, I analyse how the built and natural environments have worked together to create and preserve a residential hub within inner Sydney. I show that these built and natural environments have enabled members of the new community to enact Sack’s (1986, 22) third relationship of territoriality (‘enforcing control’).

The Sydney Harbour Bridge was built in 1932 and borders the eastern side of Millers and Dawes Points (as discussed in Chapter 4, Section 4.4). More specifically, the Bradfield Highway that carries onto the Sydney Harbour Bridge separates Millers and Dawes Points from Sydney’s CBD. Later, the Cahill Expressway (built in the late 1950s) formed an important link between Sydney's eastern and northern suburbs and is situated at the southern end of Millers Point (as discussed in Chapter 4, Section 4.4). There was strong opposition to its construction due to its appearance and because it created a barrier between the city and its waterfront (Davies 2007). For Millers and Dawes Points, the arrangement of both the Cahill Expressway and the Sydney Harbour Bridge created a large physical barrier that have served as ‘cushions’ protecting the area from major redevelopment (Fitzgerald and Keating 2009). Millers and Dawes Points sit in contrast to other parts of the inner city, namely The Rocks, which has not had protection from redevelopment, leaving the area with less residential spaces (Fitzgerald and Keating 2009). Apart from protecting Millers and Dawes Points from major redevelopment, both the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Cahill Expressway have become distinct and well known suburb dividers. For example, the research conducted during in-depth interviews showed that 16 out of 17 respondents graphically illustrated that the Sydney Harbour Bridge divided the area from the CBD on the eastern side and the Cahill Expressway to the South31. Because these built structures have preserved the traditional

31 During in-depth interviews residents were asked to clearly delimit boundaries on maps I provided them (if they believed there were boundaries that separated Millers and Dawes Points’ from each other and from Sydney’s CBD). There were no suburb markings on these maps to avoid producing biased results. 187 community’s residential location it has become prime real estate that residents of the new community have bought into.

The Cahill Expressway linked with the Bradfield Highway act as clear boundaries for Millers and Dawes Points. These structures also appear to have shaped residents of both the traditional and new communities’ sense of territory and belonging to the area. Most residents of both communities illustrated that these structures form the boundaries of their suburbs. In addition, the vast majority of photographs taken by residents (for the Community Eyes Project) were also taken within the boundaries these roads have created32. There appears to be a correlation between the boundaries these structures have provided and a sense of belonging these residents feel towards the landscape. The distinction in environments between suburban Millers and Dawes Points and Sydney’s surrounding CBD was also a contributing factor in fostering attachments.

The natural topography of Millers and Dawes Points has also protected the area from external influences and helped to maintain it as a residential precinct. Sydney’s Harbour33, which frames Millers and Dawes Points on its northern and western sides, has prevented development on these boundaries. In addition, Millers and Dawes Points’ wharves are rarely used for public transport as ferries are directed to nearby Circular Quay34. With Sydney’s ferry interchange located in Circular Quay, Millers and Dawes Points have avoided becoming a major transport hub, which would have likely altered its residential atmosphere because of the increased numbers of visitors passing through the area. The new community have capitalised on these existing benefits provided by the built environment. As discussed in Chapter 4 (Section 4.3), Millers and Dawes Points’ rocky terrain initially prevented the British from accessing the area. Today, the area’s steep terrain has formed a ‘natural’ boundary around the precinct known as Walsh Bay, which is occupied by residents of the new community (see Chapter 5, Figure 5.7). For example, Walsh Bay is wrapped by a natural sandstone cliff (displayed in Figure 6.6), which made access to the lower part of Dawes Point difficult. On foot, Walsh Bay may be accessed by stairs making visitation to the area inconvenient for elderly people or parents with young children; as this resident of the traditional community expressed: ‘The steps [to Walsh Bay] can be quite intimidating for

32 The next most likely place to be photographed after Millers and Dawes Points was the suburb ‘The Rocks’. 33 Sydney’s Harbour is part of the Parramatta River. 34 Circular Quay is located next to the eastern side of The Rocks. 188 people who don’t like [to] walk around much’ (Respondent #16, 28 September 2010). Another member from the traditional community also found access to Walsh Bay on foot challenging: ‘It’s [Walsh Bay] kind of awkward to get to ... mainly because of the stairs and the pram’ (Respondent #1035, 30 September 2010). Figure 6.7 shows examples of the stairs referred to by the interview respondents. The topography of Millers and Dawes Points has worked to create physical boundaries between the traditional and new communities.

Figure 6.6: Image of a sandstone cliff ‘wrapping’ Dawes Point. The sandstone cliff is a major physical barrier that makes entry into Walsh Bay difficult for individuals who are not highly mobile. Source: 28-112mm zoom/digital/exp.auto/HK 2010

35 Please refer to Appendix I (Table 2) to view the socio-economic attributes of Respondent #10. 189

Figure 6.7: Images of stairs that allow pedestrian access to Walsh Bay. Source: 28-112mm zoom/digital/exp.auto/HK 2010

Both the built and natural environments have shielded Millers and Dawes Points from major redevelopment, which have preserved the area as a residential precinct. In addition to capitalising on the opportunities afforded by the existing built and natural environments of Millers and Dawes Points, residents of the new community have undertaken measures that asserted their entitlement to urban space that go beyond simply residing in the area and holding private views about the locations of social housing. The following sections describe

190 several moments of territoriality capitalised on, or enacted by the new community within their new local environment. I show that these territorial measures have normalised the new community’s presence in the landscape which has, in turn, further enhanced the process of gradual erosion of the traditional community’s sense of belonging to the Millers and Dawes Points precinct. This erosion has further destabilised their long-held senses of place.

6.3.3.2 Territorialising through ‘privatopias’ and place names Central to the concept of territoriality is the ability to ‘delimit and assert control over a geographic area’ (Sack 1986, 19). Along with Sack (1986), McKenzie (1994) has similarly explored the manipulation of territory for personal gain through the rise of ‘privatopias’. ‘Privatopias’ describe housing styles that are ‘designed to be separate and shielded from their surroundings’ (McKenzie 1994, 9). By residing in a set of newly formed ‘privatopias’, the new community have been provided with a ready-made territorial technique that has been designed to control access to urban space. For example, Sack (1986, 33) has identified that ‘territoriality helps make relationships impersonal’. This section sketches some of the ways that ‘privatopias’ have been designed to minimise the new community’s engagement with residents of the traditional community, and vice versa. I also demonstrate that the increased numbers of ‘privatopias’ within Millers and Dawes Points have worked to normalise the new community’s presence in the area through strict delineation and privatisation of urban space. In addition to residing within ‘privatopias’, residents of the new community have engaged in a process of re-naming localities in the area that better reflects their hold on urban space. Such territorialisation strategies have further disconnected residents of the traditional community from what has long been their urban place at the heart of Sydney. In this section, I show that the new community’s territorial measures have furthered the understanding that the traditional community are no longer an accepted part of the landscape, which is also being felt by many of its members who greatly fear the loss of their traditional territory and homes.

‘Privatopias’ are capable of causing division in urban areas because of their independence from the operations of local governments (McKenzie 1994). For example, ‘privatopias’ are often equipped with private swimming pools, gymnasia and other services that are not maintained by local governments (McKenzie 1994). Examples of ‘privatopias’ in Millers and Dawes Points include residential developments such as The Stamford Marque, Stamford on Kent, The Georgia, The Parbury, Observatory Tower, The Highgate, Towns Place apartments and Pier 6/7 Apartments. These ‘privatopias’ contain amenities housed within the 191 apartment complexes, with some including private swimming pools, concierges and security guards. The privatisation of these amenities has meant that the new community are, in some ways, independent from the local City of Sydney Council and the services it provides to the residents.

Millers and Dawes Points’ ‘privatopias’ represent a territorialisation technique that I have dubbed ‘architectural territoriality’. The new community’s residential architecture has been designed in a way that reduced the new community’s exposure to elements of Millers and Dawes Points that they perceive as unappealing. A prominent example of architectural territoriality is the cluster of ‘privatopias’ within the ‘Kent Street Village’. The ‘Kent Street Village’ is comprised of a cluster of high-rise apartment developments occupied by the new community at the southern end of Millers and Dawes Points36. These high-rise developments limit interactions with the Millers and Dawes Points’ wider community. For example, one resident of the new community noted how the design and price of their ‘privatopia’ had enhanced the new community’s privacy and security: ‘The Georgia’s ... apartments start at two million [Australian dollars]. And it’s got this stunning entry but you can’t see anything past [inside] it, it’s so private’ (Respondent #18, 27 September 2010). For these high-rise developments, entries into their foyers are restricted and serve as the first barrier against unwanted visitors. In addition, many of these apartments have also employed concierges who (in addition to their usual caretaking roles) have regulated access to intruders. This resident of the traditional community stated:

Theirs [new community’s high-rise style of living] is a different level of community. There’s a man [concierge] that stops you from coming into their community. Whereas this [traditional community based area] is street level (Respondent #6, 26 March 2011).

By contrast, a member of the traditional community described their community’s architectural barriers used to mitigate against unwanted visitors: ‘We told our neighbour not to oil her gate because that’s her first line of knowing that someone is coming in. That’s your first alarm’ (Respondent #4, 21 March 2011). These highly contrasting defence mechanisms highlighted how the area has become differently inhabited. However, the new community’s

36 The cluster of high-rise apartment developments that comprise the ‘Kent Street Village’ include The Stamford Marque, Stamford on Kent, The Georgia, The Observatory Tower and The Highgate. 192 residential architecture has not encouraged members of the wider community to engage with them. One resident of the traditional community explained how the new community’s ‘privatopias’ have reduced opportunities for social interaction:

The reason why I called it [Kent Street Village] a gated community is [because] you can’t do any letter box drops there to tell them about anything going on in the community because it’s all behind locked glass doors, caged doors ... All they do is drive through the suburb into their secure car park. They don’t live in the suburb as far as I’m concerned ... they don’t even have to go out of their gated community. So they add nothing [to Millers and Dawes Points] (Respondent #1, 9 September 2010).

As a researcher, I also felt the effects of the new community’s architectural territoriality when I attempted to distribute surveys to high security apartments. The concierges of three ‘privatopias’ forbade me access to the new community’s letterboxes.

According to members of the traditional community, Millers and Dawes Points’ ‘privatopias’ are not restricted to the ‘Kent Street Village’, but were also found along the residential pier (Pier 6/7) in Walsh Bay. Once construction of the residential pier was completed in 2004, barricades were installed that prevented members of the public from walking around the perimeter of the wharf. This reduced accessibility has not escaped the notice of residents from the traditional community who have generational ties to the individuals who worked on the wharves. One member of the traditional community has commented on how the new community’s ‘privatopias’ have changed their ability to access the waterfront:

When they [Walsh Bay’s developers] first applied for it [Walsh Bay’s redevelopment] you were supposed to be able to walk along them [the piers] like you used to be able to. But of course the rich people [new community] came in so one wharf [Pier 6/7] got closed off [to public access] (Respondent #12, 25 March 2011).

Another resident of the traditional community questioned whether the new community’s ability to restrict access to the waterfront has been fair:

193

You can’t walk around [Pier 6/7] while people [new community] are in their homes and look through their windows ... Just because they get uncomfortable seeing people walk around doesn’t mean they should get to block access [to the waterfront] (Respondent # 7, 25 March 2011).

Figure 6.8 shows the bollards that were erected in 2009 to ‘separate pedestrian movement from traffic flow’ and block vehicular access from Windmill Street to Pottinger Street (Walsh Bay Finance Pty Ltd 2003). A member of the traditional community explained why they believed the installation of bollards was a territorial strategy:

The residents [new community] actually pay a lot of money with rates and they actually managed to get that [Pottinger Street] blocked off with bollards so people can’t drive through. So you can only drive up [to Walsh Bay] from Hickson Road now (Respondent #8, 30 June 2010).

Figure 6.8: Looking North along Windmill Street, Millers Point. The bollards are located in the foreground of the photograph and are designed to block vehicles passing between Windmill Street and Pottinger Street. Source: 28-112mm zoom/digital/exp.auto/HK 2010

The placement of the bollards is significant because it has restricted vehicular access from a street with a high proportion of social housing to an area that is predominately inhabited by residents of the new community. The bollards have assisted in redirecting traffic, which

194 means that entry into the Walsh Bay precinct is now far more difficult for others from the local area. Therefore, these bollards acted as another physical boundary that separated the territory of the traditional and new communities.

In response to the new community’s territorial efforts, one member of the traditional community expressed how the new community’s ‘privatopias’ have represented unwanted encroachment into her/his territory:

We’re [traditional community] being squeezed by the northern part, by the buildings like The Observatory and The Georgia and The Highgate ... Then down on to the [apartments on the] finger wharves. Yes, we are being all squeezed all the way around (Respondent #1, 9 September 2010).

If this encroachment continues to occur, more of what the traditional community perceives as ‘their’ territory will be overrun by ‘privatopias’. As these ‘privatopias’ have become increasingly common in the landscape (and the traditional community become less present), the new community will normalise their presence in the landscape. These ‘privatopias’ have served as constant reminders that the traditional community’s continued presence in Millers and Dawes Points is unwelcome.

Promoting places in certain ways to create appeal has long been practised by place makers. For example, Crilley (1993, 237) described how architecture may be used as a form of advertising to appeal to potential buyers and to ‘erase [the] stigmatisation of ... industrial decay’ in London and New York. Locally, Shaw (2006, 185) has described how Manhattan/New York nomenclature has been used to ‘promote the sale of Sydney’s former industrial ... inner-city areas’. These types of promotions have also been utilised in Millers and Dawes Points where long held place names have been altered to create distinctive appeal. I argue that changing place names has been another act of territorialisation. For example, attempts in the past have been made to subsume Millers and Dawes Points into The Rocks (as documented in Chapter 4, Section 4.6). While these attempts by government authorities were unsuccessful, the struggle to retain the suburb names ‘Millers and Dawes Points’ has continued. In December 2009, Manage Meant Pty Ltd (with the support of the City of Sydney Council) delivered a petition to the Geographical Names Board to have the location

195

‘Walsh Bay’ assigned as a suburb separate to Millers and Dawes Points37 (Manage Meant Pty Ltd 2009). Manage Meant Pty Ltd (2009, 4) declared that Walsh Bay’s ‘historical and cultural benefits’ warranted its own suburb designation. One resident of the traditional community provided an alternative explanation for the push to make Walsh Bay its own suburb:

Really [Walsh Bay] doesn’t exist [as a suburb]. These people are trying to make that exist because they are trying to be separate from Millers Point. They [the new community] don’t like the aura [of Millers Point] (Respondent #16, 28 September 2010).

According to this resident (quoted above), the attempts to acknowledge Walsh Bay as an official suburb has been a strategic marketing exercise designed to distinguish the cultural attractions of Walsh Bay from the negative reputation of Millers and Dawes Points. As discussed in Chapter 5 (Section 5.3.1.1), the negative reputation of Millers and Dawes Points has largely centred on issues associated with social housing, such as the effects on demographic composition and neighbourhood aesthetics. Another member of the traditional community has explained how the petition to make Walsh Bay a suburb demonstrated some members of the new community’s reluctance to identify with Millers Point:

Dawes Point and Walsh Bay are just points of direction. How can a bunch of people on the ... wharves ... call themselves another suburb? They’re going to get the same post code ... Millers Point is 2000, [Sydney’s] CBD is 2000, Walsh Bay is going to be ... 2000. I call them [the new community] the gated community because they want be identified as a totally different suburb (Respondent #1, 9 September 2010).

The attempt to distinguish Walsh Bay as separate suburb demonstrate the commitment to territorialising Millers and Dawes Points. If this place-naming territorial strategy was successful, it would further justify the new community’s presence within Millers and Dawes Points through formal acknowledgement. Even without official recognition of Walsh Bay, the widespread informal recognition of the locality has already enabled residents of the new

37 Walsh Bay’s official description is described as: ‘A bay within Port Jackson about 1 km S of the suburb McMahons Point’ (Geographical Names Board 2012). 196 community to normalise their presence in the area. To date, the attempt to assign Walsh Bay its own suburb listing has not been successful (McKenny 2012), although that does not preclude any applications from being submitted in the future.

Another place-naming territorial strategy is the name ‘Kent Street Village’ as created by real estate agents and encouraged by members of the new community38. For the same motivations to make Walsh Bay an official suburb, the ‘Kent Street Village’ title is yet another attempt to separate a specific area within Millers and Dawes Points from its surroundings. For example, an apartment within the ‘Kent Street Village’ was advertised as being located within the ‘heart of ... an enclave’ (Vanguarde Estate Agents 2012b). One resident from the new community explained the reasons for distinguishing the ‘Kent Street Village’ from its surrounds:

... there is a bit of a separate identity with the cluster of the high-density apartments, which are [occupied by a] very different socio-economic demographic to ... the [social] housing precinct ... So I guess that’s maybe why the real estate agent has that distinction. But in some ways it’s good to have a name and identity around that because it is a different community (Respondent #24, 6 September 2010).

Members of the new community have connected with this place-naming territorial strategy because the promise of living within an ‘enclave’ evokes sentiments of exclusivity, and further distinguishes the area from the negative reputation of Millers and Dawes Points (Vanguarde Estate Agents 2012b). Because of this territorial strategy, residents of the new community have fewer reasons to engage with the aspects of Millers and Dawes Points that they consider less appealing, such as social housing and its tenants.

Residential architecture and place names have been designed with the new vision of Millers and Dawes Points in mind, effectively distancing areas from the ‘unappealing’ elements of Millers and Dawes Points. The outcome of this territorial strategy is that these new placenames and residential architectures are not part of the traditional communities’ historical experiences in the area. Residents of the traditional community have also expressed their

38 Apartment developments that are marketed as the ‘Kent Street Village’ included Observatory Tower (Sydney Cove Property 2013a), Stamford Marque (Belle Property 2013), Stamford on Kent (Sydney Cove Property 2013b), The Grand (Vanguarde Estate Agents 2013) and The Highgate (Vanguarde Estate Agents 2012a). 197 distaste for Millers and Dawes Points’ ‘privatopias’: ‘That green building, ‘The Observatory’ ... Every time I see the ... thing it looks like the army camouflage bunker. It’s the worst green that you could imagine’ (Respondent #1, 9 September 2010). Another resident of the traditional community provided his view of the ‘privatopias’ in Walsh Bay:

[The Towns Place developments are] hideous ... The most ugliest appalling things. It looks like it’s landed from outer space and squashed what was there ... And the same happened with the finger wharves [Pier 6/7]. They don’t look ... anything [like] what they were used [for, in the past] (Respondent #12, 25 March 2011).

As the new community’s presence becomes more prevalent and the landscape increasingly changed, it is likely that residents of the traditional community will continue to be disconcerted. This increased disconnection between place and individual has meant that maintaining emotional attachments to Millers and Dawes Points is becoming more difficult for residents of the traditional community. Without maintaining these emotional ties, the traditional community’s senses of place will continue to diminish.

The construction of these new ‘privatopias’ combined with their new place names have unsettled residents of the traditional community. Members of the traditional community have found the new architecture confronting and the efforts to rename parts of Millers and Dawes Points strategic. The territorial strategies described in this section have been designed to minimise the new community’s engagement with the elements of Millers and Dawes Points perceived as unappealing, including members of the traditional community. Residents of the new community have increased their presence in the area, which has also increased their visibility. This has made residents of the traditional community appear as irregular in the landscape. Therefore, the new community’s occupation of Millers and Dawes Points is increasingly normalised while the traditional community is increasingly marginalised. This change has been and will continue to be detrimental to members of the traditional community’s senses of place. The following section describes how residents of the new community have conceptualised and responded to a dominant discourse that has identified Millers and Dawes Points as criminally oriented, and therefore as places to be feared and ultimately cleansed.

198

6.3.3.3 Responding to fears of crime in Millers and Dawes Points Kuo and Sullivan (2001) have noted that fear of crime is particularly prevalent amongst inner city neighbourhoods. Residents of the new community identified alcohol and drugs, crime, social housing (and its residents) as some of the major issues that have caused them concern (see Figure 6.5). One resident of the new community described some of their concerns about living in the area: ‘I wouldn’t be very happy walking down Kent Street late at night, you might get shouted at by the locals [traditional community]’ (Respondent #20, 11 October 2010). Smith (1987b, 16) stated that fear of crime may be reduced by implementing a variety of strategies such as ‘crime reduction ... [and] environmental improvements’. Through these strategies urban dwellers can reduce their fears of crime by controlling the environment around them (Smith 1987b). For example, the new community have directly addressed their fears of crime by employing security guards39. Manage Meant Pty Ltd explained that the security guards’ role was to ‘provide a visible security presence as a deterrent to inappropriate behaviour and respond to incidents that threaten, damage or adversely impact on the Precinct Property’ (Manage Meant Pty Ltd 2012). Even though the new community’s fears of crime are relatively unfounded (as described in Section 6.3.2), the security guards have provided a sense of control over the environment. Residents of the new community have expressed how the added security measures have increased their perceived sense of safety in Millers and Dawes Points:

We’re very lucky the security is very good here [in Millers and Dawes Points] ... They patrol around and overnight to make sure that there is no trouble happening in the area. So you feel very very safe walking around here at night (Respondent #23, 14 September 2010).

Shaw (2007, 197) documented how gentrifiers in inner Sydney used such ‘fortressing technologies’ as employment of private security to increase a sense of safety in a suburb also stigmatised by its long-term residents. Similarly, members of the new community have hired security guards to control the environment around them and to increase their sense of safety. Hiring security guards to patrol areas specific to the residential locations of the new community is territorial strategy because of the guards’ main purpose: to remove or contain

39 Respondent #15 (14 September 2010) explained that the security guards patrol areas where the new community reside such as Towns Place, The Parbury, Shore Apartments, and Pier 6/7. 199 events or people that threatened the order and stability of Millers and Dawes Points, as well as provide a visual reminder of the new order.

Survey results show that residents of the new community felt safe while living in Millers and Dawes Points (see Figure 6.9). Figure 6.9 also illustrates that very few residents from the new community indicated that they felt ‘not safe’ in their living environment. The results suggest that the territorial actions undertaken by members of the new community have enabled them to feel more in control of their environment, thus contributing to their overall sense of safety.

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Not Safe Low Safeness Neutral Safe Extremely Safe

Level of Safeness Traditional Community New Community

Figure 6.9: Rates of safeness amongst resident in Millers and Dawes Points.

In this section, I have detailed some of the territorial measures utilised by members of the new community to ‘enforce’ control, which reflects Sack’s (1986, 32) third interdependent relationship of territoriality. I have shown that the built and natural environments of Millers and Dawes Points (and its surrounds) have preserved the area as a residential precinct. This preservation has allowed members of the new community to capitalise on the residential space already occupied by residents of the traditional community through acts of territorialisation. The territorial techniques utilised by residents of the new community included place-naming strategies, architectural territoriality and the employment of security

200 guards. These territorial strategies have worked to increase the new community’s visibility in the area, which has also worked to normalise their presence in the landscape. In doing so, the new community’s territorial strategies have disconnected residents of the traditional community from the landscape, physically and conceptually, which has eroded their ties to the landscape.

Part 2 of this chapter has discussed how members of the new community have mirrored Sack’s (1986, 32) first interdependent relationship of territoriality (‘classification’). As gentrification cycles have continued, the real estate market in Millers and Dawes Points has become increasingly restrictive by allowing only members from the new community to enter and reside in the area. The increased visibility of the new community has contributed to re- imaging the site as a new gentrified precinct. This re-imaging has normalised the presence of members of the new community. In line with Sack’s (1986, 28) second interdependent relationship of territoriality (‘communication’), residents of the new community have expressed their support for their new vision for Millers and Dawes Points as territory for elite housing consumption where social housing is increasingly viewed to be irrelevant and inappropriate to the new version of urban space. I have documented the rationales members of the new community used to support this vision, and provided the explanations as to why members of the traditional community did not agree with these explanations. I concluded Part 2 with an analysis of how residents of the new community have mirrored Sack’s (1986, 32) third facet of territoriality (‘enforcing control’). Residents of the new community have used territorial techniques to enforce their perceived entitlement to Millers and Dawes Points. These territorial strategies have worked to swiftly normalise the presence of the new community in Millers and Dawes Points, which has further eroded the traditional community’s presence and sense of belonging. I have also demonstrated that the combination of the territorial strategies described above have worked to reduce the fears of crime for members of the new community, who live within safeguarded compounds, or ‘privatopias’. Throughout Part 2, I have built a picture of how members of the traditional community feel their senses of belonging and place in inner Sydney have been continually eroded.

201

Part 3 6.4 A Sense of placelessness and a politics of resistance In Part 3 of this chapter, I shift my discussion to examine how the territorial strategies enacted by the government and residents of the new community have caused an increasing sense of placelessness amongst residents of the traditional community. However, residents of the traditional community have not been passive recipients of the government’s and the new community’s territorial actions. Also discussed is how residents of the traditional community have deployed territorial gestures to resist the threats to urban space they perceive as their own.

In this section, I show that from the traditional community’s perspective, the territorial actions of the government and the new community have caused changes altering the character of Millers and Dawes Points. I show that these changes have contributed to the traditional community’s rising sense of ‘placelessness’. Relph (1976, 143) has defined ‘placelessness’ as:

Residents of the traditional community have identified three main changes (that are the outcomes of territorial processes), which undermine the ‘significance’ of Millers and Dawes Points (1976, 143). I argue that this loss of significance has contributed to the traditional community’s rising sense of placelessness. In the following section, I discuss how the arrival of new residents, the sales of social housing, new developments such as Walsh Bay combined with the reduction of other general services in the area have contributed to a sense of placelessness for the traditional community.

6.4.1 Placelessness and the arrival of new residents In this section, I demonstrate how residents of the traditional community believed that the arrival of new residents and the decline of the traditional community have devalued Millers and Dawes Points because the area is seen to be losing its ‘significance’ (Relph 1976, 143).

202

This perception points towards a growing sense of placelessness experienced by members of the traditional community.

The results in Figure 6.10 indicate that members of the traditional community believed that Millers and Dawes Points had changed for the worse over the last five years than residents of the new community (see Figure 6.10). Residents were asked to elaborate on what contributed to their views about the changes occurring in the area and the results are presented in Figure 6.11. The traditional community’s two most observable changes were the negative effects from the new community’s arrival into the area and that their own community was disappearing (see Figure 6.11).

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% Area has improved Area has worsened Area has not Have lived here less Not Answered changed much than 5 years

Traditional Community Change in Area New Community

Figure 6.10: Resident views of changes to Millers and Dawes Points over the last five years.

203

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Negative view of Area has been Original No change Other Not Answered new arrivals improved community fading away Traditional Community Observed Changes New Community

Figure 6.11: The changes in Millers and Dawes Points as observed by the traditional and new communities40.

As discussed in Chapter 5 (Section 5.2.4), new residents arriving in Millers and Dawes Points (from both the new community and new social housing residents) have indicated that forming strong social relationships with the wider Millers and Dawes Points’ community was not a priority for them. Residents of the traditional community felt that this social detachment has created a less cohesive community, as this community member attests:

Growing up here [Millers and Dawes Points], we were sort of like one big family ... If anything happened to you, someone along the street would offer to help out ... But today, we’re out of people to come and look after you. I can only put it down to [Housing NSW] and the rubbish [new social housing residents] that they’ve let in. They’ve [new social housing residents] changed the area a lot. A lot more crime and drunks and carrying on (Respondent #4, 21 March 2011).

For this resident of the traditional community (quoted above), her/his ‘deepest levels of place’ are founded on their childhood experiences and attachments to the community (Relph 1976, 143). This resident has described that the influx of new residents have eroded at

40 Data used for Figure 6.11 was obtained from Question 39 of survey instrument (see Appendix V). 204 her/his well-established associations to place by disrupting the maintenance of the traditional community’s social connections. This resident’s increasing sense of disconnection with place indicates that s/he is experiencing a sense of placelessness. This member of the traditional community similarly explained how new arrivals are distancing her/him from their ‘deepest’ associations with place:

The old community [traditional community] is slowly being lost. Due to the actions of [Housing NSW] there are very few new people moving in who have any interest in engaging in the community ... This attitude is reflected by the new wealthy residents [new community] too (Survey Respondent #5).

This resident of the traditional community explained how the loss of her/his community effectively ‘cut[s their] roots’ to Millers and Dawes Points (Relph 1976, 143):

The more maritime related people [traditional community] that leave, the less hold we [traditional community] have on the area. And the less interest of [new residents] to keep it [Millers and Dawes Points] as is (Respondent #7, 25 March 2011).

This resident (quoted above) believed that those who are more rooted to Millers and Dawes Points (that is, the traditional community) uphold the ‘significance’ of the area (Relph 1976, 143). For this resident, a sense of placelessness is observed because s/he considered that Millers and Dawes Points would lose its significance if residents of the traditional community no longer resided in the area. Another resident similarly explained how the members of traditional community uphold the uniqueness of Millers and Dawes Points: ‘We [the traditional community] are Millers Point’s last few breaths and the end of history of Millers Point is what we’re seeing’ (Respondent #12, 25 March 2011).

In this section, members of the traditional community have identified that the influx of new residents and the decline of their own community have detracted from the uniqueness of Millers and Dawes Points. These changes, that are a result of territorial actions, have resulted in Millers and Dawes Points being perceived as less significant, from traditional community’s perspective. In addition, these changes have eroded their ‘deepest levels of place’, which

205 points towards a growing sense of placelessness for residents of the traditional community (Relph 1976, 143).

6.4.2 Placelessness and the sales of social housing This section presents evidence to show that the sales of social housing have caused residents of the traditional community to feel a sense of placelessness in Millers and Dawes Points. Central to my discussion is how Foote and Azaryahu (2009, 98) have described processes such as ‘consumption and commodification’ as a cause of placelessness. Examples of consumption and commodification can be seen in Millers and Dawes Points where culturally significant social housing properties have become a tradeable good made available for the private real estate market to ‘consume’. I show how this commodification has ‘erod[ed at] symbols’ that are considered essential to the significance of Millers and Dawes Points by members of the traditional community. This erosion of significant elements within the landscape is seen to cultivate a sense of placelessness amongst residents of the traditional community (Relph 1976).

As shown in Figure 6.4, some residents of the traditional community have indicated that they are in favour of the sales of social housing and have offered a range of reasons. One member of the traditional community stated that it would remove the ‘new social housing residents’ (a demographic discussed in Chapter 5, Section 5.2.4.1.2): ‘I don’t disagree with the decision [because it hopefully would] get rid of the drunks’ (Survey Respondent #35). This resident of the traditional community was more practical in her/his support of the sales: ‘I have to move but I don’t mind. There is a lot of upkeep on the older homes and it too expensive for the government’ (Survey Respondent #30). Another member of the traditional community similarly stated ‘I understand the reasons [for the sales of social housing] but it makes existing tenants suspicious’ (Survey Respondent #7). However the majority of residents from the traditional community were against the sell offs. Survey data has shown that the social housing sales and suburb character loss were some of the main concerns residents of the traditional community raised for the future of Millers and Dawes Points (see Figure 6.12). These are inter-related factors because social housing was described as a vital component to the character and cultural significance of the area, as this resident of the traditional community shared:

206

I see Australians losing a big chunk of their national heritage [through the social housing sales]. It’s [social housing] going to be sold to restaurant and coffee shop developers and they’ll turn our places into boutique hotels or something. It’s morally wrong to sell off public assets that have such historical relevance ... You’re talking about the earliest and the only worker’s cottages built in Australia (Respondent #9, 12 October 2011).

This resident (quoted above) has noted that Millers and Dawes Points’ social housing properties are a ‘symbol’ of the nation’s heritage because they were associated with the ‘birthplace of the nation’ narrative (as described in Chapter 5, Section 5.2.1) (Relph 1976, 143). According to this resident, the commodification of these properties is causing Millers and Dawes Points to lose part of its cultural significance. This devaluing of Millers and Dawes Points through the commodification and consumption of its social housing properties is seen to create a sense of placelessness for this resident of the traditional community. In a similar vein, this member of the traditional community also expressed that the social housing properties were integral to the heritage value of Millers and Dawes Points:

This area has basic heritage in terms of it being the first public [social] housing area in the city ... it has created a very unique community ... And now they’re deciding to take that away. I know I don’t have the same sort of energy anymore to fight [compared to when I was younger] (Respondent #5, 21 March 2011).

This resident of the traditional community explained that the social housing properties should not be sold because they are an essential part of the working class culture of Millers and Dawes Points:

I think it’s still important that they [social housing] are in public hands ... My working class attitude and previous generations of my society and my culture built and made these things so that they belong to everybody in Millers Point (Respondent #2, 21 September 2010).

207

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

Traditional Community Concerns for Future Character of Area New Community

Figure 6.12: The traditional and new communities’ concerns for the future of Millers and Dawes Points.

These responses suggest that members of the traditional community see Millers and Dawes Points’ social housing as part of important narratives of history in place because these properties, and the individuals who lived in them, played a significant role in establishing the nation’s economy. The territorial action of releasing these culturally significant properties to the private real estate market is seen to ‘erod[e at] symbols’ that are integral to the significance of Millers and Dawes Points (Relph 1976, 143). In addition, they have become a commodity for residents of the new community to ‘consume’. According to members of the traditional community, the commodification and consumption of these properties has devalued and detracted from Millers and Dawes Points’ unique character. Thus, the resident reactions to the sales of social housing provided in this section suggest that some residents of the traditional community are experiencing a sense of placelessness in the area.

6.4.3 Placelessness, Walsh Bay and the reduction of general services A sense of placelessness for residents of the traditional community was further emphasised through the reduction of other general services in the area. Zukin (2009, 7) has described how the gradual removal of small general shops and services from urban villages combined

208 with the introduction of new developments act as the ‘relentless bulldozer of homogenization’. This ‘homogenization’ can be seen in Millers and Dawes Points through a decrease in the broad range of services that the area once provided (Zukin 2009, 7). According to Relph (1976, 143), this homogenisation can cause a sense of placelessness amongst individuals because ‘diversity [is replaced with] uniformity’.

This resident of the traditional community described the most significant services to her/him that have disappeared from the area: ‘We have lost many businesses. We lost the TAB41, which was a meeting place ... We’ve lost chemists; we’ve lost a general store’ (Respondent #1, 9 September 2010). This resident of the traditional community also commented on the loss of general services:

We [traditional community] had a little paper shop ... the low mongrels [new community] put a complaint in [about the] ... noise [from] papers being dropped on the footpath [and] trucks ... The [shop owner] ... soften[ed] the noise ... but they ... kicked him out. So that was yet another business that was lost to the area (Respondent #4, 21 March 2011).

Another member of the traditional community described one of the more poignant losses to her/him in the area:

Dr Shearer42 doesn’t have much life left in him. He’s 75 [years old] and when he goes there won’t be a replacement that I imagine that [will] bulk bill43 us [traditional community]. We’re going to be forced to join the real world eventually (Respondent #2, 21 September 2010).

As discussed in Chapter 4 (Section 4.7) the demands of gentrifiers (i.e. residents of the new community) have resulted in significant additions to Millers and Dawes Points’ private residential housing stock (or ‘privatopias’) as well as an increased commercial presence in the area. Although the Walsh Bay development has included a range of new commercial

41 A Totaliser Agency Board (or ‘TAB’) is a private betting agency (Tabcorp 2012). 42 Dr Shearer is a well-known and highly regarded local general practitioner. He has worked in Millers and Dawes Points for many years treating patients in the area. 43 ‘Bulk billing’ is a system where the Australian government pays for a percentage of patient medical bills (Department of Human Services 2013). 209 services44, the results of the survey instrument showed that residents of the traditional community rarely ventured into the precinct (see Figure 6.13). Members of the traditional community explained that they rarely visited Walsh Bay because the services available were not appropriate to their needs. This resident of the traditional community stated:

When Walsh Bay was being all done up we were told were going to get a proper shopping supermarket [and] all we got was a glorified Coles45 metro type store46 (Respondent #1, 9 September 2010).

This member of the traditional community believed that these services were also largely irrelevant to her/his needs:

They’ve [development authorities] put in shops that are empty on Hickson Road [Walsh Bay]. It’s just ... empty shops down there [Walsh Bay] because people that can afford [to shop in Walsh Bay] are barely living there. Or they have the maid do it [shopping] or they have it [shopping] delivered or they eat out. The shops are ... crap. We didn’t get supermarkets or butcher that the community needs. It’ll be dress shops or didgeridoo [tourist] shops, a convenience store and other crap (Respondent #12, 25 March 2011).

44 A detailed list of the commercial services available in Walsh Bay can be found at http://www.walshbaysydney.com/index.php/business-directory/ and includes many services related to the cultural and dining industries. 45 Coles is a chain of supermarkets with stores located across Australia (Coles 2012). 46 The ‘glorified Coles metro type store’ Respondent #2 is referring to is a grocery shop called ‘Fratelli Fresh’. Fratelli Fresh is known for its premium ‘fresh produce and fine Italian food’ (Fratelli Fresh 2012). 210

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Weekly Fortnightly Monthly Rarely Never Not answered

Traditional Community Visitation Rates To Walsh Bay Eateries New Community

Figure 6.13: Resident visitation rates to Walsh Bay eateries.

The responses from residents of the traditional community (quoted above in this section) indicate that the loss of services and the addition of some new services not utilised by them has not added value to Millers and Dawes Points. This loss of ‘diversity’ as identified by members of the traditional community, indicates that they are experiencing an increased sense of placelessness (Relph 1976, 143).

6.4.4 A politics of resistance As the government’s and the new community’s territorial actions continue to occur, residents of the traditional community have attempted to resist the changes occurring in their suburbs to curb their increasing sense of placelessness. In the following section, I provide examples of how the traditional community’s territorial actions have been an attempt to protect their perceived entitlements to place. I discuss the most significant territorial measures undertaken by members of the traditional community to express their opposition to the sell offs, which included hosting a community meeting and providing their support for art installations that acted as visual protests. However, as demonstrated below, these territorial measures have had limited impact against the far more powerful territorial actions of the government and the new community.

211

A community meeting was organised by Millers and Dawes Points’ community leaders and held on the 29th of July 2010 to address the issue of the social housing sales47. In this meeting, which I attended as part of the research process and took notes (with permission), residents of the traditional community created a list of motions, which were carried unanimously and are summarised as follows:

1. No more social housing sales, 2. Housing NSW must lease vacant homes, 3. No more forced evictions of social housing residents, and 4. Housing NSW must provide adequate maintenance of homes.

During the meeting, five residents from Millers and Dawes Points social housing community volunteered to communicate these demands to Housing NSW. These representatives organised a meeting with the then Housing Minister (Frank Terenzini) in August 2010 and communicated that Millers and Dawes Points should better serve the needs of the social housing community (Tovey 2010b). In response to the meeting, the Housing Minister provided a written response to the community’s demands in October 2010 (Tovey 2010b). The letter provided by the Housing Minister repeated Housing NSW’ stance on the sales of social housing (Terenzini 2010). The letter reiterated that Millers and Dawes Points’ social housing properties were too expensive to renovate and that the profits of the sales would fund other social housing projects in the inner west (Terenzini 2010).

While this community meeting generated publicity through the media (see for example Tovey 2010c), this attention was occasional and momentary. That is, even though the sales are an issue that regularly affect many members of the traditional community, it has been typically reported only when a new development occurs (see for example Tovey 2010a; Tovey 2010b; Tovey 2010c). While the community meeting did generate some publicity, the overall success of the traditional community’s residents’ territorialisation efforts was limited. For example, Housing NSW has not responded to any of the demands tabled during the community meeting. Residents merely received a letter from Housing NSW restating its argument that social housing was not economically feasible in Millers and Dawes Points.

47 This community meeting was held at the Abraham Mott Community Centre, which is located within Millers and Dawes Points. 212

The traditional community’s ability to protect and maintain their senses of place has been compromised because the scale of resistance to the social housing sales has not had the support or impetus of previous moments of resistance, such as occurred during the Green Bans in the 1970s (as discussed Chapter 4, Section 4.6.1). The Green Ban movement included large-scale protests and trade union support, which generated high levels of media coverage (Mundey 1981). Despite the low levels of impact of the recent resistance to the social housing sales, residents of the traditional community remained strongly opposed to the changes currently occurring in Millers and Dawes Points compared to the 1970s. However, the traditional community’s resistance to the sell offs have been hindered by the addition of a very different new group of social housing residents who are less inclined to engage with the wider community (as discussed Chapter 5, Section 5.2.4.1.2). In addition, many members of the traditional community are part of an aging population who are generally less mobile and therefore less capable of taking part in resident activism such as street protests. During the 1970s, resident activism was responsible for halting the redevelopment of The Rocks (Mundey 1981). For Millers and Dawes Points, the recent activism was less effective as the government has conveyed its preference for economic profits over the needs of minority groups and used territorial tactics to achieve this. With fewer residents of the traditional community left to enact their own territorial measures, their ability to maintain their community’s identity and foster social relationships is weakening, as are their senses of place, which have been diminished.

Because residents of the traditional community had a limited variety of ways to resist territorialisation pressures, they have welcomed support for their cause from elsewhere. For example, they embraced the installation of a set of public artworks that broadcast their plight within Millers and Dawes Points in early 200948. The public art installation was titled ‘Housing the Seafaring Nation’ by artist Ruark Lewis49. Selections of these artworks are displayed in Figure 6.1450. Ruark Lewis (2009) has stated that his ‘project aim[ed] to build a platform for policy review and for the voices of residents [traditional community] and heritage experts to be heard’. The artwork was constructed to honour and ‘re-inscribe the importance of Millers Point as it is the oldest continuous urban community in

48 Various residents of the traditional community and local stakeholders were involved in the production of the project (Lewis 2009). 49 Artist Ruark Lewis is not a local resident of Millers and Dawes Points but is ‘renowned for his linking of art, poetics and political discussions’ (Lewis 2009). 50 Installation sites included the National Trust Building (Observatory Hill), Abraham Mott Community Centre (Argyle Place) and the Baby Health Centre (Lower Fort Street) (Lewis 2009). 213

Australian/European settlement history’ (Lewis 2009). Lewis’ (2009) artwork has drawn upon the birthplace of a nation narrative (see Chapter 5, Section 5.2.1), which is designed to invoke a sense of obligation from the wider community and government to house the generation of individuals who ‘kick started the economy of Australia’ (Respondent #12, 25 March 2011).

Figure 6.14: Examples of Ruark Lewis’ artwork in Millers and Dawes Points. Top photograph shows the title ‘HOMELESSNESS’ displayed above the parapet of the National Trust of NSW’ building. ‘Homelessness’ refers to the fears social housing residents have if they are removed from

214 their homes. Bottom photograph displays two artworks situated outside the Abraham Mott Hall Community Centre51. The artwork on the left show parts of transcribed interviews with the traditional community. The artwork ‘aim[s] to reflect the area’s playful political language and resistant spirit’ (Lewis 2009). The artwork on the right depicts the ‘patterning of maritime pilot markers rendered as a kind of pattern poetry’ (Lewis 2009). Source: 28-112mm zoom/digital/exp.auto/HK 2010

Members of the traditional community have responded positively to the artworks, with some displayed in Millers and Dawes Points for much longer than intended52. One individual described why they were grateful for the artworks53:

I thank you [Ruark Lewis] on behalf of the Millers Point community, who’s struggle to retain 8 generations of public housing in this historic precinct of Sydney, is not going unheard. Governments all over the world must become aware that the corporation will not and cannot determine local ... landscapes simply for their profit and gain. Over-development is a kind of culture war, one that needs to be resisted and debated always (Tiwitoo 2010).

Residents of the traditional community were aware that they must resist the territorial efforts of the government and the new community in order to maintain their connection to the landscape, and their senses of place. As Lewis (2009) noted ‘It’s the people who make the place’, and therefore, through his artwork, Lewis conveyed the message that without the members of the traditional community occupying Millers and Dawes Points and developing and maintaining their connection to place, the area will change dramatically. The artwork featuring the word ‘homelessness’ (see Figure 6.14) sent out a strong message about an aspect of this dramatic change.

In Part 3 of this chapter, I described how territorial actions are causing Millers and Dawes Points to lose its historically and culturally significant character. For example, the influx of

51 Artwork on the left side of the photograph reads: ‘Here is much sneakiness they auctioned 36 and 37 Kent 21 27 32 33 53 56 57 64 Lower Fort St 64 62 30 Argyle 22 88 Merriman 60 Bettington 1 Gloucester 27 Windmill there will be no one left what the Macquarie St mob does rubs off you wait your turn all of a sudden you get the feeling its out of control the MSB [Maritime Services Board] was paternalistic security was 100 percent a lot of residents are concerned Millers Point people are passionately local there is nothing of greater merit to a government than to preserve and protect public housing an enlightened community needs a cross section of people demolition by neglect ...’. 52 The art installations were originally intended to be displayed through February and March 2009. However, some artworks installed at the Abraham Mott Community Centre were still on display at time of writing. 53 Millers and Dawes Points’ art installation was featured on ‘BBC World News’ in October 2009. The video can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJr5BQSGtQw. 215 new arrivals and the decline of the traditional community was seen to erode at the traditional community’s well established connections to place. This severing of ties to Millers and Dawes Points indicates that some residents of the traditional community are experiencing a sense of placelessness. The commodification and consumption of social housing, was also seen to create a disconnection between individuals and the elements of the landscape they considered key to the significance of the area. This loss of these historically important architectures was linked to a sense of placelessness for some members of the traditional community. The reduction of general services along with the Walsh Bay development was shown to create a more homogenised landscape. This lack of diversity has further contributed to the devaluation of the character, and an emerging sense of placelessness within Millers and Dawes Points.

Part 3 continued to describe how residents of the traditional community have resisted the actions of the government and new community by enacting territorial measures of their own. However, finding more effective ways to fight this ongoing encroachment of territory has been difficult because of the long-term and highly successful territorial methods used by the government and residents of new community. Newer social housing residents who were less concerned about being evacuated from the area have not assisted the traditional community’s resistance efforts. In addition, public protests that were effective in the past were less likely to be repeated due to the ageing population of the traditional community. Assistance from the wider community arrived in the form of public art installations by artist Ruark Lewis. Lewis’ artworks created a visual reference to the plight of the traditional community throughout Millers and Dawes Points’ landscape. Through his artwork, Lewis conveyed that much more was at stake than simply losing social housing stock from Sydney’s inner city. The artwork highlighted how Sydney was at risk of losing its own ‘urban village’, which has been integral to Sydney’s colonial heritage.

6.5 Conclusions This chapter has examined the ways the NSW state government and members of the new community have enacted territorialisation strategies in Millers and Dawes Points. The territorialisation techniques have been analysed by referring to Sack’s (1986,) three interdependent relationships of territoriality. Part 1 began by exploring how the government has re-imaged Millers and Dawes Points’ as a form of ‘classification’ (Sack 1986, 32). Underpinned by neoliberal paradigms, the government has supported individual 216 homeownership and inhibited the provision of social housing making housing less accessible to members of the traditional community, who rely on government provided housing. As the traditional community’s presence becomes less visible in the landscape, their ability to maintain connections to it has begun to impact on their sense of belonging and attachment to the place they perceived as their own.

In line with Sack’s (1986, 32) second interdependent relationship of territoriality (‘communication’) the government has further territorialised Millers and Dawes Points by promoting the message that the traditional community are no longer a desirable presence in the area. The government has used a variety of territorial gestures to promote the idea that the traditional community are not a valued part of Millers and Dawes Points, primarily through its management (or lack thereof) of social housing and its occupants. For example, the government has not effectively managed its social housing in the past or present (from the perspectives of the residents of the traditional community). In addition, the government’s representatives have been accused of using administrative scare tactics, which have generated a culture of mistrust amongst members of the traditional community Housing NSW.

Part 1 concludes with an analysis of how the government has used territorial measures to exercise its control over Millers and Dawes Points’ social housing landscapes. In doing this the government has reflected Sack’s (1986, 32) third interdependent relationship of territoriality (‘enforcing control’). The territorial measures undertaken have included neglecting social housing properties, leaving properties vacant and then placing them on 99- year leases. These actions, undertaken by the NSW government, have resulted in the key tangible artefacts of place that are significant to the traditional community’s senses of place being unavailable to social housing residents (for at least 99-years). Consequently, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the traditional community to maintain their senses of place.

Part 2 of this chapter explored how members of the new community engaged in acts of territorialisation in Millers and Dawes Points. The new community’s territorial activities were also examined and revealed that Sack’s (1986, 28) first interdependent relationship of territoriality (‘classification’) was being enacted. I analysed how a restrictive real estate climate has limited entry to Millers and Dawes Points to only members of the new community due to their economic capacity to buy or rent properties in the area. By entering 217 and residing within Millers and Dawes Points, members of the new community have been able to re-image the area as space for themselves. Due to their increased visibility in the area, members of the new community have been able to re-define Millers and Dawes Points as a location where residents that are more affluent belong.

The new community’s territorial actions have also imitated Sack’s (1986, 32) second interdependent relationship of territoriality (‘communication’). By being in support of the sell offs, members of the new community expressed their new vision for Millers and Dawes Points – that this upmarket inner city area should no longer be used to contain social housing residents. I examined the reasons given by residents of the new community that supported the sales of social housing. Residents of the new community advocated for a more sustainable use of state funds and a more balanced socio-economic mix in the area. I also documented the arguments used by members of the traditional community to refute the new community’s vision. Members of the traditional community claimed that retaining Millers and Dawes Points’ social housing stock would be a more equitable use of resources.

By drawing on Sack’s (1986, 32) third interdependent relationship of territoriality (‘enforcing control’), this chapter analysed how members of the new community have used or capitalised on territorial methods to gain control of Millers and Dawes Points. I explored how the natural and built environments of Millers and Dawes Points have prevented further redevelopment in the area (such as has occurred in The Rocks). I have shown that residents of the new community have capitalised on these natural and built environments to territorialise Millers and Dawes Points in two main ways. First, the residents of the new community reside within ‘privatopias’, which has minimised their opportunities for social interactions with the wider community, in particular, with members of the traditional community. The result of this territorial strategy is that the visibility of members of the traditional community has decreased. This decreased visibility has transformed a once thriving community into an irregular presence in the landscape. Second, place-naming strategies have also been used to distance the residential areas of the new community from the reputation of Millers and Dawes Points as criminally inclined locations. Residents of the new community have also employed security guards, which also represented another territorial strategy. These territorial strategies have appeared to be effective as residents of the new community indicated that their fears of crime are relatively low as compared to residents of the traditional community who feel more vulnerable to the possibility of crime. 218

By referring to Sack’s (1986) three interdependent relationships of territoriality, I have shown that the combination of the territorial strategies used by the government and the new community have reduced the opportunities for the traditional community to maintain their presence in Millers and Dawes Points. With reduced numbers of the traditional community, their capacity to form meaningful social relationships with each other has and will continue to diminish. Without members of the traditional community present to develop and maintain social relationships with each other, their community’s presence has also become increasingly indistinct. With reduced numbers living in Millers and Dawes Points, the ability of members of the traditional community to form meaningful bonds with other residents and to the landscape has been reduced.

Part 3 of this chapter demonstrated that the government’s and the new community’s territorial actions have fundamentally altered Millers and Dawes Points. These changes have caused an increasing sense of placelessness amongst residents of the traditional community. I examined how the demise of the traditional community, the social housing sell offs and the Walsh Bay development have devalued Millers and Dawes Points from the traditional community’s perspectives. As a result, residents of the traditional community have experienced an increasing awareness of being placeless. In addition, I identified the territorial actions used by residents of the traditional community to resist the strategies of the government and the new community. Residents of the traditional community hosted public meetings in an effort to curb their increasing sense of placelessness and to protect their connections to this inner urban place. However, these efforts have not been as effective as some actions that occurred in the past because of the reduced numbers of the traditional community left to protest.

219

Chapter 7 – TERRITORIALISING BARANGAROO: TRANSFORMATION THROUGH REDEVELOPMENT

7.1 Introduction In Chapter 6, I analysed how the territorial actions of the NSW state government and members of the new community threatened the traditional community’s senses of place and territory they perceive as their own. I follow Chapter 6 with a discussion about how additional territorial actions have further affected both the traditional and new communities. Millers and Dawes Points’ unique waterfront location (within the centre of a global city) has triggered a new round of territorial actions by the NSW state government and private corporations. This chapter examines these territorial actions and how they will continue to affect these communities into the future. Sitting adjacent to Millers and Dawes Points is a 22-hectare brownfield site that has escaped redevelopment pressures until now (see Figure 7.1). This chapter examines how this space is about to change through an analysis of the most recent spate of territorial actions. By drawing on Sack’s (1986) three interdependent relationships of territoriality, this chapter examines how the government and private corporations have gained control of this inner city space in the name of capital and territorial accumulation.

Figure 7.1 has been removed due to Copyright restrictions

Figure 7.1: ‘Barangaroo’ (highlighted in yellow) is a vacant 22-hectare site, which lies adjacent to Millers and Dawes Points (highlighted in red and blue respectively). Source: (Google Earth 7.0 2013a)

This chapter begins with a historical overview to explain how the site now known as ‘Barangaroo’ has played a vital role in Australia’s early economy. This economic role will be renewed with a focus on financial and commercial industries. This section continues to describe the controversies surrounding Barangaroo’s planning, which have caused Millers and Dawes Points’ residents to grow anxious about the proposed changes to their suburbs. By drawing on Sack’s (1986, 28) first interdependent relationship of territoriality, this chapter documents how the government has re-imaged Barangaroo South as an act of ‘classification’.

220

I examine how Barangaroo South has been re-imaged as a commercial precinct and how this re-imaging has raised concerns for the traditional and new communities. The government has also promoted Barangaroo South to Millers and Dawes Points’ residents, and the wider community, through place naming and design competitions, which align to Sack’s (1986, 28) second interdependent relationship of territoriality (‘communication’). Finally, I discuss how the government has once again exercised its control over Millers and Dawes Points by using territorial measures, which embody Sack’s (1986, 22) third interdependent relationship of territoriality (‘enforcing control’). Through these territorial actions, I demonstrate how the government and private corporations have exacerbated a sense of placelessness for the traditional community.

The proposed redevelopment of Barangaroo’s headland park is also analysed in this chapter with reference to Sack’s (1986) three facets of territoriality. The traditional and new communities have received the development of the headland park more favourably, yet a growing sense of placelessness is emerging amongst residents of the traditional community due to the enormity of the overall Barangaroo redevelopment proposal. This chapter concludes with an examination of Millers and Dawes Points’ communities’ responses to Barangaroo’s redevelopment and how these acts of resistance have changed from the resistance efforts of the past.

7.2 A snapshot of Barangaroo ‘Barangaroo’ is located on the eastern side of Millers and Dawes Points and was heavily utilised during Sydney’s industrial period (c. 1820 to 1950). During the 1960s, advances in maritime transport technology resulted in the old style finger wharves becoming redundant and were thus later demolished (Fitzgerald and Keating 2009). To compensate for this redundancy, Barangaroo’s finger wharves were transformed into a single concrete platform in the 1960s in order to service large shipping containers (Galloway 2005). Even with Barangaroo’s renovation, the site was unable to keep up with the advances in container shipping technology and the area was once again rendered redundant in the early 1980s1 (Fitzgerald and Keating 2009). Consequently, Barangaroo ceased servicing the merchant shipping industry and was instead used to offload passengers from large cruise ships. Apart from tourists from the passenger ships passing through the area (to reach Sydney’s inner

1 Facilitating Barangaroo’s redundancy was the rise of the maritime trade at Port Botany, Newcastle and Port Kembla (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2012d). 221 city), the Barangaroo site remained largely inaccessible to members of the public for around 100 years (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2012c). Until recently, few activities or events have occurred on the site (Fitzgerald and Keating 2009).

The long-term general inaccessibility of the Barangaroo site was reflected by Millers and Dawes Points’ residents. For example, the research conducted during in-depth interviews showed that 16 out of 17 respondents believed Millers and Dawes Points’ boundary ended where Barangaroo’s boundary began (as discussed in Chapter 6, Section 6.3.3.1). While Barangaroo is still included in some official maps as being part of Millers and Dawes Points, the residents’ mental separation of the areas has been reinforced through the natural topography of the area. The natural sandstone cliff that ‘wrapped’ Walsh Bay (see Chapter 6, Section 6.3.3.1) also continues to frame Barangaroo preventing pedestrian access to the area (see Figure 7.2). Barangaroo’s natural separation has been reinforced with the installation of permanent gates and fencing, which have restricted access to the area. Additionally, the concrete landscape of the Barangaroo site is dramatically different to the residential landscape of Millers and Dawes Points, which presents another prominent distinction between the two locations.

Figure 7.2: South Eastern view of Millers and Dawes Points from Barangaroo. Photograph depicts the sandstone cliff that acted as a physical barrier, which separated Millers and Dawes Points from Barangaroo. Source: 28-112mm zoom/digital/exp.auto/HK 2010

222

Currently, Barangaroo is an undeveloped 22-hectare brownfield site located within a global city. Its economic value has been increased by its waterfront location, which has secured the precinct’s status as prime real estate. Because of Barangaroo’s inaccessibility and general unattractiveness (from the view of residents2), it has remained largely unnoticed because it has led a relatively uneventful existence in recent times (Fitzgerald and Keating 2009). As few activities or events have occurred on the site in recent years (as compared to the rest of Sydney’s inner city), Barangaroo has been mostly overlooked by Millers and Dawes Points’ residents, until recently. Because of its valuable position and redundant status, the transformation and redevelopment of the site was inevitable. Thus, Barangaroo is once again facing plans for redevelopment. Barangaroo’s transformation is particularly significant because it is Sydney’s largest urban regeneration project since 2000 (Browne 2012).

The potential for high economic return through the redevelopment of Barangaroo is immense. Paul Keating (former Australian Prime Minister and former Chair of the Barangaroo Design Panel) described the prospect of redeveloping Barangaroo as a ‘once-in-two-century opportunity’ (Nicholls 2011, 1). As few cities with the regional significance of Sydney have such redevelopment opportunities, the potential benefits for the government through the redevelopment of this relatively untouched part of Sydney’s inner city are substantial.

Following the NSW state government’s decision to redevelop the site, the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority3 launched an international design competition for Barangaroo in 2005. From there, Barangaroo’s design has been a continuous process and a final comprehensive development plan has not yet been officially approved. However, a Concept Plan (that has gone through several modifications) was compiled and detailed the current designs for the area. The Concept Plan’s designs were conceptually underpinned by the goal to create and maintain Barangaroo (and Sydney) as a major financial hub in the Asia Pacific region (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2011). To achieve this goal, Barangaroo was separated into three distinct precincts: Barangaroo South, Barangaroo Central and the Headland Park (see

2 One resident of the new community expressed their distaste for Barangaroo’s current landscape: ‘[Barangaroo is] hideous ... desolate, spooky, ugly ... And yet [because of its waterfront location] it’s one of the most beautiful spots that there could be’ (Respondent #23, 14 September 2010). 3 The Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority is a government organisation that ‘manages significant commercial and retail leases, provides security, cleaning, building maintenance and other facility management services’ across Sydney. The Authority also administers ‘tourism and marketing services’ (Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority 2013). 223

Figure 7.3). Concept plans indicated that Barangaroo South would be predominantly commercial in nature, whilst also including some residential and retail facilities (see Figure 7.4) (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2011). I argue that Barangaroo South has been the most controversial precinct because its focus on the financial and commercial sector has caused concerns for many residents from both the traditional and new communities (and the wider public). Lend Lease Corporation4 successfully tendered to construct Barangaroo South (but not the Headland Park or Barangaroo Central) and will fund the construction of the A$6 billion precinct. The Headland Park will provide recreation space for Barangaroo’s residents and visitors while Barangaroo Central has been zoned as mixed use and will incorporate cultural, residential and civic components (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2011).

Figure 7.3 has been removed due to Copyright restrictions

Figure 7.3: Aerial view of the proposed Barangaroo development, separated into three sections: the Headland Park, Barangaroo Central and Barangaroo South. Source: (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2011)

Figure 7.4 has been removed due to Copyright restrictions

Figure 7.4: Artist’s impression of the proposed Barangaroo South precinct5. Source: (Lend Lease 2012a)

The construction of Barangaroo began in 2010 and will be gradually completed over the next 15 years with the headland park and the first commercial office tower to be completed in 2015 (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2012c). Overall, Barangaroo will be a mixed-use precinct and include a variety of facilities such as ‘public waterfront walks and parks, shops, cafés and restaurants, commercial office towers and apartments, all serviced by new and extended transport systems’ (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2011, 9). Barangaroo is expected to accommodate over 23 600 workers, 2 500 residents as well as 33 000 extra visitors each day (Sussex and Penn 2011).

4 Lend Lease is a ‘listed property group specialising in project management and construction, real estate investment and development’ (Lend Lease 2012c). 5 The Barangaroo Delivery Authority offered the following disclaimer on the graphic from their website: ‘The building designs, colours and decorations, including internal layouts and external landscaping are indicative only and subject to change. The towers are depicted in isolation and the proposed adjacent residential and commercial buildings are not shown. All structures shown, or not shown, including any proposed ferry facilities are subject to planning consent and market conditions and may change’ (Lend Lease 2012a). 224

7.2.1 Planning Barangaroo and an overview of community responses Barangaroo’s design and planning process has not proceeded in a clear and succinct manner (Sussex and Penn 2011). The planning process officially began on the 12th of May 2005, when the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority announced an international design competition for the precinct. The competition’s winner was announced on the 27th of March 2006 and a Concept Plan for Barangaroo (based on the winning scheme) was lodged five months later on the 16th of October 2006. In the six years that have followed the lodgement of the original Concept Plan, Barangaroo’s design has been modified through three main development modifications. Table 7.1 provides a summary of the amendments to Barangaroo’s Gross Floor Area (GFA), which have proven to be controversial. The controversies surrounding the development’s modifications (such as increases to total GFA) prompted the newly elected NSW Premier (Barry O’Farrell) to order an independent inquiry into Barangaroo’s design and management process in May of 2011 (Nicholls and Moore 2011) (this is further explained in Section 7.5). One finding from the independent Barangaroo Review was that the community had been ill informed about of the many changes to Barangaroo’s design (Sussex and Penn 2011). Because of the depth and complexity of Barangaroo’s planning process, the community (including Millers and Dawes Points’ residents) have expressed confusion and anxiety about what the future holds for Barangaroo and their local suburbs (Sussex and Penn 2011).

Table 7.1: Barangaroo’s total GFA changes through its modifications6 (Sussex and Penn 2011). Total GFA (m²)

Concept Plan 399 800 Modification 2 519 800 Modification 3 501 000 Modification 4 563 965

Millers and Dawes Points’ residents have repeatedly raised their concerns about Barangaroo’s redevelopment. When asked to comment on their future concerns for Millers and Dawes Points, the ‘Barangaroo’ development was frequently identified in surveys and in- depth interview data carried out in 2010 by both the traditional and new communities (see Figure 7.5). When residents were questioned specifically about the Barangaroo development,

6 Modification 1 is omitted from Table 7.1 as it did not change Barangaroo’s total GFA. 225 some residents still viewed it positively, but with some reservations and concerns emerging (see Figure 7.6). Although, the traditional and new communities may have viewed the upcoming Barangaroo development in the same light initially, the evidence gathered for this thesis indicates that the traditional community will be particularly affected, which became apparent over time to members of this community. The evidence points towards a growing sense of placelessness for individuals from the traditional community (a full explanation is provided in Section 7.3.4). There was no such evidence to suggest that members of the new community would be similarly impacted.

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

Traditional Community Concerns for Future Character of Area New Community

Figure 7.5 (also Figure 6.12): The traditional and new communities’ concerns for the future of Millers and Dawes Points.

226

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

0% Positive Negative No view Some Positive Other Not answered attributes attributes concerns attributes with concerns

Resident Views of the Barangaroo Redevelopment Traditional Community New Community

Figure 7.6: Residents views regarding the Barangaroo development7.

A resident of the new community elaborated on their concerns for the development:

Barangaroo is the biggest thing in the world ... I’m frightened that they’re [Barangaroo’s planners] going to muck it up. We’ve got the opportunity to make it something really unique, but I think it’s just going to be tunnels of high rise (Respondent #138, 21 September 2010).

Another member of the new community commented on the significance of the site to Sydney:

Barangaroo is the last bit of Sydney’s waterfront to get right and it’s so crucial for it to work well for Sydney and for it to link up the CBD and Wynyard9 (Respondent #23, 14 September 2010).

7 Data used for Figure 7.6 was obtained from Question 33 of survey instrument (see Appendix V). 8 Please refer to Appendix I (Table 2) to view the socio-economic attributes of Respondent #13. 9 ‘Wynyard’ is a rail station within Sydney’s inner city and lies 0.32km from Barangaroo South and 1.22km from the Headland Park. 227

For one member of the new community Barangaroo’s current plans ‘[are] absolutely disgusting ... just an abomination’ (Respondent #16, 28 September 2010). Another resident from the new community similarly described the development: ‘The Barangaroo site is absolutely, positively terrible’ (Respondent #18, 10 October 2010).

Redeveloping Barangaroo has been a long and complicated process and final development plans have not yet been finalised. Therefore, unless residents made an effort to keep themselves informed of Barangaroo’s modifications, most were unaware of the precise changes to the plans. One resident from the traditional community described this predicament:

I haven’t been buying the newspapers for a while so I don’t know the immediate struggle with [former Australian Prime Minister Paul] Keating and Lend Lease and all the [building] height things ... I don’t know the difference between the refinement of the plans (Respondent #2, 21 September 2010).

Another resident from the traditional community described how being uninformed of Barangaroo’s development modifications has affected the communities’ views about the development:

Most of the people don’t know how to use a computer to look up the government website to find out details [about Barangaroo]. And even if they did know, they couldn’t be bothered. They’d rather speculate (Respondent #9, 12 October 2011).

Due to the complexity of Barangaroo’s planning procedures, it was often difficult for the public to remain well informed about its redevelopment (Sussex and Penn 2011). As a result, some residents of both the traditional and new communities felt they were unable to provide an informed view regarding Barangaroo’s development. For example, the following response was typical: ‘[I'm] not sure [about the Barangaroo development]. [I'm] not aware of the final design’ (Survey Respondent #152). Another resident of the new community similarly stated: ‘I am reserving judgement [about Barangaroo] until I know more [about its design]’ (Survey Respondent #439). A member from the traditional community stated that they had: ‘ ... no idea about this Barangaroo’ (Survey Respondent #11). In addition, modifications to

228

Barangaroo’s design are still occurring and will continue to do so beyond the completion of this thesis. To compensate for this lack of information, the views of the wider public who kept themselves informed of Barangaroo’s development are included in this chapter where relevant. These views were gathered by accessing opinion piece articles in newspapers and public internet forums dedicated to the discussion of Barangaroo’s redevelopment.

By drawing on Sack’s (1986) three interdependent relationships of territoriality, the following section analyses Barangaroo South, which has caused the most controversy of all the three precincts and is therefore the focus of this chapter. This chapter unpacks the various responses provided by Millers and Dawes Points residents in Figures 7.5 and 7.6 by exploring how Barangaroo South has been re-imaged via various promotional and enforcement strategies. I discuss how Barangaroo South will affect the traditional and new communities’ senses of place as well as contribute to the consequent growing sense of placelessness experienced by members of the traditional community.

7.3 Territorialising Barangaroo South This section begins by exploring how Barangaroo South has been re-imaged as a commercial precinct as an act of ‘classification’ (1986, 28). I explore how this re-imaging has raised concerns in both the traditional and new communities. I proceed to analyse how the government’s commercial vision has been ‘communicated’ to Millers and Dawes Points’ residents and the wider community through design and place naming competitions (1986, 28). I show that the government and private corporations have reflected Sack’s (1986, 22) third interdependent relationship of territoriality by ‘enforcing’ their vision for Barangaroo South. This section concludes with an analysis of how these territorial actions have resulted in a growing sense of placelessness for residents of the traditional community through an erosion of their senses of place.

7.3.1 Neo-liberal paradigms and the re-imaging Barangaroo South as an act of classification In line with Sack’s (1986, 28) first interdependent relationship of territoriality (‘classification’), the government has re-imaged Barangaroo South as a centre for economic activity. This section explores how the government’s vision to establish Barangaroo South as a major financial hub has been motioned by several governmental strategies, which indicated that economic growth is vital to Sydney’s (and Australia’s) future. I continue by analysing 229 how Sydney’s office space shortage has also pressed the government into re-imaging Barangaroo South as a commercial arena. This section also details the traditional and new community’s responses to Barangaroo South’s re-imaging. In particular, many residents have expressed their fears for how Barangaroo South’s redevelopment will impact upon their claim to this urban space.

Barangaroo South’s current state as an unoccupied space within Sydney’s inner city presents a unique opportunity for the NSW state government. The decision to reimage Barangaroo South as a major ‘financial services hub’ is underpinned by the NSW Government’s 2005 Metropolitan Strategy, which sought to secure and enhance ‘Sydney’s place in the global economy’ (NSW Government 2005a, 6). This redevelopment realises Smith’s (1979; 1982; 1986; 1987a) ‘rent gap’ as discussed in Chapter 2, Section 2.2.3. Similar to the economically driven motivations behind the sales of social housing in Millers and Dawes Points, the NSW government intends to redevelop the 22 hectare slab to generate further profits. Neoliberal paradigms underlie the redevelopment motivation, which is to engage in competitive market arenas and position and cement Sydney as globally competitive city (as discussed in Chapter 2, Section 2.3) (Larner 2000; Harvey 2005).

The 2005 Strategy set targets for Sydney’s inner city, which included maintaining and enhancing Sydney’s role as a financial centre by 2031. Targets for the 2005 Strategy included 58 000 new jobs as well as 55 000 new dwellings in Sydney’s inner city (NSW Government 2005a). Barangaroo South is largely implicated in this strategy as the government has sought to transform this part of Sydney’s inner city into a financial hub to achieve these targets. This decision to transform Barangaroo South into a financial hub became even more imperative when in 2010, a new Metropolitan Strategy was released and targets for Sydney’s city were amplified. For example, new dwelling targets increased by 6000 new properties (NSW Government 2010a) and employment capacity targets increased by 78 000 new jobs, compared to the 2005 Strategy (NSW Government 2005b). The City of Sydney Council has also assisted the state government’s commercial vision for Barangaroo. In 2008, the City of Sydney Council released the ‘Sustainable Sydney 2030’ report, which also detailed planning targets for Sydney’s city. As with the state government, the City of Sydney Council also re-imaged Barangaroo for commercial purposes by aiming for 27 000 new jobs (and 3500 new dwellings) to be located specifically in Barangaroo (Sussex and Penn 2011). 230

A further reason prompting various government agencies to re-image Barangaroo as a commercial and financial arena was Sydney’s commercial office space shortage (Sussex and Penn 2011). In December 2009, The Property Council of Australia reported that Sydney’s CBD had only 12 years of potential office space available to the commercial sector (The Property Council of Australia 2009). By February 2011, The Property Council of Australia reported that tenant demand for commercial office space was at its highest in over three years (The Property Council of Australia 2011). In particular, the vacancy rates for premium office space were at 3.1 percent, the lowest in over a decade (The Property Council of Australia 2011). Compounding the issue of available office space was that the finance sector was predicted to boom, meaning Sydney would require even more office space (Sussex and Penn 2011).

To address a potential lack of commercial office space in Sydney’s near future, the Metropolitan Strategies along with the City of Sydney Council’s reports have indicated that more office space must be constructed to protect Sydney’s financial interests and to compete with other cities on a global scale (Sussex and Penn 2011). Research indicated that these new office spaces must be designed specifically to accommodate the requirements of the financial sector10 (Sussex and Penn 2011). Barangaroo South has been designed to address these issues by providing Sydney’s CBD with 40 percent of the forecasted demand for office space over the next decade (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2011). Barangaroo South will also increase premium or A Grade office supply by 18 percent (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2011). In addition, Barangaroo South is expected to contribute A$1.5 billion per year to the NSW economy over the same period (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2011). The effects of the strategies produced by the government can also be seen on Barangaroo’s official website11, which clearly stated that Barangaroo ‘is an opportunity to reinvigorate Sydney’s position as a financial services hub in the Asia Pacific by generating jobs [and] boosting the economy’ (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2012c). The Barangaroo website continued to explain that Barangaroo South will ‘reaffirm Sydney’s standing as a global city and attract new investment to NSW and Australia’ (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2012c).

10 For example, large open plan spaces with ‘square or rectangular floor plates’ are preferred amongst the insurance and finance sectors (Barangaroo’s commercial office space shortage is further discussed in Section 7.3.3.2) (Sussex and Penn 2011, 44) 11 The Barangaroo Delivery Authority manages Barangaroo’s official website and can be found at: http://www.barangaroo.com/. 231

With property becoming an increasingly scarce resource in inner Sydney (Kusher 2012), the decision to re-image a significant portion of the foreshore for commercial interests has raised concerns amongst Millers and Dawes Points’ communities. For example, the decision to locate a major financial hub next to a predominately-residential district has caused both the traditional and new communities to grow anxious. That is, members of the traditional and new communities considered the close proximity of the commercial district to a predominately residential district inappropriate. This member of the new community stated: ‘[Barangaroo will bring] too many people [and] may destroy the village atmosphere [of Millers and Dawes Points]. [Barangaroo] may make area too commercial’ (Survey Respondent #400). Another resident of the new community stated: ‘[Barangaroo] to me means more noise, more traffic, more people. This area is not built for this increase’ (Survey Respondent #25). This resident of the traditional community expressed: ‘I don’t like the proposed high rise buildings – [Millers and Dawes Points] will be overcrowded and [redevelopment will] affect [the] residential atmosphere’ (Survey Respondent #30).

Millers and Dawes Points’ communities also raised concerns over tenancy rights for Barangaroo South. Many residents have communicated that because Barangaroo is public land, it should have remained as public space12. One resident from the new community voiced: ‘I think the objection I have is South Barangaroo being smack bang right on the foreshore where I think should always be kept for the public’ (Respondent #17, 15 September 2010). Another resident from the new community similarly stated: ‘It is not the government’s harbour to give to a developer!’ (Survey Respondent #157). A resident from the traditional community stated:

Based on the Walsh Bay experience [I have a] low opinion of Barangaroo. The harbour belongs to all. It should be kept open space. We have already lost a lot to Walsh Bay (Survey Respondent #10).

The decision to re-image Barangaroo South as a financial hub has been a territorial act because the government has regulated access to resources through this re-imaging. The demand for greater economic activity in Sydney’s CBD has allowed Barangaroo South to be

12 If Barangaroo South was zoned for public use, it would not have been re-imaged as a commercial precinct. 232 redeveloped as a commercial precinct, rather than enable facilities more relevant to the local population and existing CBD to be constructed. For example, given the loss of nearby social housing stock, Barangaroo South’s redevelopment could have included social housing properties to compensate for this loss (this is discussed further in Section 7.3.3.5). The traditional community in Millers and Dawes Points face further marginalisation as Barangaroo’s contributions to economic growth unlikely to directly benefit social housing dwellers.

The independent review into Barangaroo’s redevelopment found that while the government will financially benefit from Barangaroo South, its decision to re-image the site as a commercial precinct ‘is a conflict embedded in the nature of executive government and is monitored at the ballot box’ (Sussex and Penn 2011, 9). Thus, according to the authors of the Barangaroo Review, Barangaroo South’s commercial focus was fair because the government (responsible for the precinct’s redevelopment) was elected by the public, which includes the individuals living within Millers and Dawes Points. The implication here is that the Westminster legal system regulates these issues because it is the public who elected the state government to re-image Barangaroo South (Sussex and Penn 2011).

This section has described the neoliberal paradigm that has underpinned the government’s re- imaging of Barangaroo South as a commercial and financial hub. I have shown that this re- imaging has been a territorial gesture in line with Sack’s (1986, 28) first interdependent relationship of territoriality (‘classification’). Overall, the government’s economic re- imaging for Barangaroo has raised concerns amongst the traditional and new communities about the placement of an internationally significant financial site next to Sydney’s ‘urban village’. I have outlined how members of the traditional and new communities fear how redevelopment will impact on their claim to urban space.

7.3.2 Communicating Barangaroo South: Promoting a commercial arena Following Sack’s (1986, 28) second facet of territoriality (‘communication’), the government has expressed its commercial vision for Barangaroo South to Millers and Dawes Points’ residents (and the wider community). As the government has initially re-imaged Barangaroo South as a commercial space, its next territorial phase was to communicate this vision to Millers and Dawes Points’ residents and the wider public via promotional strategies, which are detailed in this section. By promoting a commercial vision for Barangaroo South, the 233 government has also suggested that Millers and Dawes Points’ residents are not a significant consideration in the precinct’s redevelopment.

7.3.2.1 Place naming Barangaroo In 2006, the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority announced a competition to name the ‘East Darling Harbour’ site proposed for major redevelopment (NSW Department of Planning 2007, i). The competition received over 1600 entries and by October 2006, the three-member competition jury panel13 (appointed by the NSW Planning Minister) selected ‘Barangaroo’ as the winning entry (NSW Department of Planning 2007). The name ‘Barangaroo’ was chosen to honour the second wife of Bennelong who was a Gadigal Elder and acted as the first interlocutor between the British and Aboriginal people (NSW Department of Planning 2007).

The competition jury based their decision to name the proposed redevelopment site ‘Barangaroo’ for several reasons. First, the jury declared that the name ‘honour[ed]’ a significant female figure in Sydney’s history particularly during the British colonisation of Australia (NSW Government 2006). The competition jury also argued that a female Indigenous name acknowledged the first occupants of the site that became Sydney, which is far removed from most inner city tributes that favour British male colonisers (NSW Government 2006). The name also created a historical link between Sydney’s western foreshore with the eastern foreshore named ‘Bennelong Point’ (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2012b).

A member of the new community welcomed the new place name: ‘I love it [Barangaroo’s name]. And I love what it stands for: the woman herself. She was a really strong woman by all accounts14’ (Respondent #17, 15 September 2010). Another resident from the new community remarked: ‘It’s [Barangaroo] a very memorable name and you don’t forget it. The minute you say it you know what it is. I think it’s a good name’ (Respondent #23, 14 September 2010). However, the official appointment of the name ‘Barangaroo’ in 2007 (Geographical Names Board 2007) has raised criticism from other Millers and Dawes Points’ residents and the general community alike. For example, instating the name ‘Barangaroo’,

13 The jury panel for the naming competition included The Hon Paul Keating (former Australian Prime Minister from 1993 to 1996), Ms Elizabeth Anne Macgregor (Board and Director of the Museum of Contemporary Art) and Ms Margy Osmond (formerly the NSW Chief Executive Officer of the State and Chambers Commerce). 14 Barangaroo herself was reputed to be a ‘natural born rebel’ who refused to conform to British customs or stereotypical female roles (Clendinnen 2005, 229). 234 removed the moniker, ‘The Hungry Mile’, which was given to the area during the Great Depression in the 1930s, and referenced the maritime workers who struggled to find employment on the wharves (as discussed in Chapter 4, Section 4.4). A social media (facebook©) group titled: ‘Petition to change back East Darling Harbour’s name back to The Hungry Mile’ was set up in protest to the appointment of the name ‘Barangaroo’ (Faulkner 2009). The facebook© group explained that ‘The Hungry Mile’ should be retained to honour ‘the men and women who braved the Great Depression and build [sic] the modern Australian nation by the sweat of their brows’ (Faulkner 2009). Elizabeth Anne Macgregor of the jury panel expressed that the ‘The Hungry Mile’ ‘was not even discussed’ on a shortlist of names for the area (The Sydney Morning Herald 2006, 4). Macgregor has stated that the competition jury panel overlooked the moniker as they ‘wanted something that had a bit more optimism, that looked to the future rather than a moment in history’ (The Sydney Morning Herald 2006, 4). Macgregor also added: ‘Would you want to live somewhere called The Hungry Mile?’ (Norrie 2006, 8). Macgregor has assumed that people would prefer to live within a precinct titled with an Indigenous reference rather than one associated with the hardship of Sydney’s maritime period (c. 1820 to 1950).

In disagreement with the decision to relabel the site ‘Barangaroo’, the Maritime Union of Australia15 in collaboration with the City of Sydney Council (with the support of other members of the public), reached a compromise with the state government and the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority using a Memorandum of Agreement. The Agreement secured The Hungry Mile as the official locality name around a stretch of Hickson Road (see Figure 7.7) (Maritime Union of Australia 2008). In addition, a proposal was also sent to the Geographical Names Board of NSW16 which designated The Hungry Mile as an ‘urban place’ from the section of Hickson Road between Munn Street and Napoleon Street in 2008 (see Figure 7.7) (Geographical Names Board 2008). The Maritime Union of Australia (2008) stated that with the Memorandum of Agreement and official acknowledgement from the Geographical Names Board of NSW that ‘the name of the point will remain Barangaroo, but the area itself will be known as The Hungry Mile’. However, according to the Geographical Names Board of NSW, in 2007, ‘Barangaroo’ was already assigned as the area’s official

15 The Maritime Union of Australia ‘represents around 14,000 Australian men and women - stevedoring workers (wharfies), seafarers, divers, port workers and office staff’ (Maritime Union of Australia 2012). 16 The Geographical Names Board of NSW manages and standardises place names across NSW (Geographical Names Board 2009). 235 suburb name (and not ‘urban place’) almost seven months before the name ‘The Hungry Mile’ was designated to the area17 (Geographical Names Board 2008).

Figure 7.7 has been removed due to Copyright restrictions

Figure 7.7: The Hungry Mile (indicated by the black arrow) as noted by the Memorandum of Agreement and recognised by the Geographical Names Board. However, the area is more commonly referred to as ‘Barangaroo’ (highlighted in yellow) as it was designated as the area’s official suburb name. Source: (Google Earth 7.0 2013b)

The competition jury panel’s decision to name the site ‘Barangaroo’ represented a territorial gesture enacted by the government. By relabelling the site ‘Barangaroo’, the government has diffused the links to the ‘less palatable aspects of the past’ (Shaw 2005, 58), in particular, the arduous working conditions during its maritime history (as discussed in Chapter 5, Section 5.3.2). By having downplayed the title ‘The Hungry Mile’, the government has removed one of the central narratives that form the traditional community’s residents’ senses of place (as discussed in Chapter 5, Section 5.2.1). With the removal of the ‘The Hungry Mile’ title, the men and women who ‘kick started the economy of Australia’ (Respondent #12, 25 March 2011) are no longer celebrated in the landscape. Therefore, by severing these historical ties, the government has weakened the traditional community’s residents’ connections to the area’s maritime history and thus a key element in their constructions of their senses of place has been removed.

In addition, naming and assigning Barangaroo as its own suburb is similar to the attempts of having Walsh Bay listed as an official suburb (as discussed in Chapter 6, Section 6.3.3.2). Naming the site ‘Barangaroo’ and not Millers Point or Dawes Point was a strategic territorial gesture designed to separate Barangaroo from the stigma of Millers and Dawes Points. This stigma once again includes the negative reputation of social housing and its residents (as discussed in Chapter 6, Section 6.3.3.2). By re-labelling Barangaroo, the government has exercised its control over space to characterise the site as a commercial precinct that is very separate to the stigma associated with nearby social housing.

Some residents of the traditional community were mindful of how Barangaroo might impinge on her/his senses of place in the future: ‘I would take umbrage if Millers Point was lost and

17 Barangaroo was assigned as a ‘suburb’ on the 5th of October 2007 by the Geographical Names Board (Geographical Names Board 2007). 236 the whole area then became Barangaroo. If they continue to gentrify Millers Point, then Barangaroo will take over’ (Respondent #1, 9 September 2010). In addition, it would have been plausible for Barangaroo to have been named Millers Point or Dawes Point as this resident described: ‘Why do they [government] [need] to change it. From my knowledge all that area was Millers Point’ (Respondent #4, 21 March 2011). In Chapter 6, I demonstrated how the government has controlled space within Millers and Dawes Points through the sales of social housing. While Barangaroo may not strictly lie within the current boundaries of Millers and Dawes Points, the government has continued to control a large portion of space that falls adjacent to those suburbs.

By holding a naming competition for Barangaroo, the government has expressed that the current name was not suitable and that the area was a neutral space, void of cultural significance. However, Sydney’s Cadigal population had labelled Millers Point ‘Coodye’ long before British occupation. The competition jury has argued that the name ‘Barangaroo’ honoured the Indigenous population of Sydney. However, Paul Keating (a member of the competition’s own jury panel and former Australian Prime Minister) argued that labelling the area ‘Barangaroo’ was ‘Aboriginal kitsch’ as ‘Bennelong’ and ‘Barangaroo’ are geographically ‘unassociated Aboriginal names’ (Pearlman 2006, 1). Paul Keating continued to argue that Australians only embraced Aboriginal culture when it suited them (Graham 2006). In addition, Chris Graham (editor of The National Indigenous Times) has stated that according to Aboriginal custom, it is offensive to speak the name of a deceased person (Graham 2006). It is arguable that if the government truly wished to honour the original occupants of Millers Point, ‘Coodye’ (its Gadigal name) would have been an appropriate choice.

Following Lend Lease’s winning redevelopment tender in 2009, the company has launched a website specifically for Barangaroo South, which detailed information regarding the precinct’s redevelopment18. On this website, Lend Lease labelled the redevelopment as ‘International Towers’ and described the precinct as ‘the heart of a new financial and professional services hub at Barangaroo’ (Lend Lease 2012b). Unlike Barangaroo’s naming process, the title ‘International Towers’ was created by Lend Lease and was not open to public input. The title ‘International Towers’ generated little or no public response as it was

18 Lend Lease’s website for Barangaroo South is located at http://www.internationaltowerssydney.com. 237 an in-house decision and not widely publicised. Thus, many residents were probably not aware the label was affixed to the site. Similar to the government’s strategies, Lend Lease has also relayed that Barangaroo South will be used for commercial purposes.

7.3.2.2 East Darling Harbour urban design competition and Concept Plan In addition to renaming Barangaroo, the government has also promoted its commercial vision through an urban design competition. The competition was designed in two stages. The five successful applicants from stage one19 were invited to refine their designs in stage two of the competition20 (Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority 2005). During stage one of the competition, the government provided a competition brief that set out design criteria for Barangaroo’s redevelopment. In this competition brief, the government clearly stipulated that it would use Barangaroo to catapult Sydney’s financial position in the Asia-Pacific: ‘[Barangaroo will] enhance the growth and positioning of Sydney as the premier business, cultural and living centre of the Asia-Pacific region’ (Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority 2005, iii). The government also communicated that Barangaroo South should be designed with ‘at least 75 percent [earmarked] ... for commercial enterprises’ and that ‘25,000 people will eventually work on the site’ (Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority 2005, 6). The competition brief also alluded to the possibility that the winning design would be modified in the future: ‘... the [design] Competition is to stimulate imaginative urban design proposals’ (Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority 2005, 6, emphasis added).

On the 27th of March 2006, Hill Thalis Architecture, Urban Projects, Paul Berkemeier and Jane Irwin Landscape Architecture (HTBI) won stage two of Barangaroo’s urban design competition. The HTBI design (incorporating the principles of the competition design brief), focussed on ‘environmental, social and economic’ dynamics that could grow with Sydney to meet ‘changing public expectations, civic requirements, social needs and market pressures’ (Hill Thalis Architecture, Urban Projects, Paul Berkemeier and Jane Irwin Landscape Architecture 2006, 1). The HTBI design was accompanied by several detailed graphical illustrations of Barangaroo’s proposed redevelopment (see Figure 7.8). Such illustrations were an early promotional tool for the government’s vision. The illustrations clearly communicated the government’s intention to have Barangaroo South host commercial and

19 Stage one received 137 entries from architecture companies (Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority 2005). 20 Monetary incentives were provided for successful applicants where A$50 000 was awarded to each of the five finalists from stage one entries. A further A$100 000 to each of these five finalists on their acceptance to enter stage two of the competition. The winner of stage two was paid a further A$100 000 (Sussex and Penn 2011). 238 financial industries. In addition, the HTBI plan limited space for residential properties21. Through promoting the winning HTBI design, the government has communicated two main details: first, that Barangaroo would be best utilised to enhance Sydney’s economic prospects. Second, that residential housing (and its communities) were a minor consideration in this redevelopment (this is further discussed in Section 7.3.3.5).

Figure 7.8 has been removed due to Copyright restrictions

Figure 7.8: Barangaroo’s urban design competition winner’s successful plan located within the red brackets. Source: (Hill Thalis Architecure and Urban Projects 2006)

In line with Barangaroo’s design process, the HTBI scheme was offered a number of suggestions by the stage two-jury panel. In particular, the jury recommended a more natural looking headland (in comparison HTBI’s harsher right angled concrete headland in Figure 7.8) and further refinement to Barangaroo South to better connect it to Sydney’s CBD (East Darling Harbour Design Competition Jury 2006). Eleven months later, a Concept Plan for Barangaroo was approved that was based on the HTBI scheme but also incorporated elements from the stage two-competition jury’s suggestions (see Figure 7.9). The Concept Plan, much like the HTBI scheme, was also commercially based with most of its Gross Floor Area (GFA) zoned for commercial use (see Table 7.2). The Concept Plan also approved using maximum heights and maximum GFAs for each commercial tower and block (Sussex and Penn 2011).

Figure 7.9 has been removed due to Copyright restrictions

Figure 7.9: Barangaroo’s Concept Plan lodged on the 13th of October 2006. The design was based on the winning HTBI scheme and incorporated the competition jury’s amendments. Source: (Gibson 2008)

Table 7.2: Barangaroo’s Concept Plan design specifics (Sussex and Penn 2011). Mixed Use Commercial Tourist Residential Retail Community Zone Total (m²) (m²) (m²) (m²) (m²) (m²) Concept Plan 279 000 30 800 60 000 16 500 2000 388 300

21 The HTBI design planned for 59.86 percent of commercial floor space and 15.91 percent of residential floor space (Hill Thalis Architecture et al. 2006). 239

The modification of HTBI’s winning design to the Concept Plan was a source of disillusionment about Barangaroo’s redevelopment and the government’s management of the area for residents of Millers and Dawes Points. The release of the Concept Plan raised concerns for both the traditional and new communities about the lack of specific details for Barangaroo’s new design. For example, information regarding building envelopes was lacking and three-dimensional graphics of the Concept Plan were not made available to the public. One member from the new community summed up her/his confusion with Barangaroo’s design process: ‘I still don’t understand why the original designs [HTBI scheme] were rejected’ (Respondent #18, 10 October 2010). One resident of the traditional community expressed:

I think it’s [Barangaroo’s planning is] just an abomination. And the saddest thing for me is that the state government ran an architectural competition. They selected a winner and from then on the whole process [was] high jacked (Respondent #16, 28 September 2010).

Moreover, given the limited allocation for residential space in the Concept Plan, it was clear that the future of concentrated public and private housing stock in Sydney’s inner city was not a priority for the government. It is apparent that maintaining Sydney’s ‘urban village’ by constructing housing in this area (to offset the social housing lost nearby) was not on the government’s agenda.

An independent review into Barangaroo’s redevelopment found that at the master plan stage the details made available to the public concerning the Concept Plan were fair and appropriate (Sussex and Penn 2011). In addition, the competition design brief did allude to the potential for designs to be altered at the discretion of the competition jury panel (Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority 2005). However, for Millers and Dawes Points’ communities (who are largely unfamiliar with the processes involved in planning major redevelopments), the Concept Plan held a simple message: the government was focussed on transforming the area into a commercial precinct at the expense of residential space.

This section has explored how the government has used widely publicised place-naming and design competitions to communicate a commercial vision for a currently empty urban space 240 now dubbed Barangaroo South in line with Sack’s (1986, 28) second interdependent relationship of territoriality (‘communication’). By labelling the precinct ‘Barangaroo’, the government has misled the community by drawing on a fabricated version of its Indigenous past. The decision to overlook ‘The Hungry Mile’ as a potential name for the site severed the precinct from its historical links to the maritime period. Thus, the traditional community’s senses of place have been eroded as their ancestral roots (that form the foundations for their senses of place) were not acknowledged in the landscape. This section also explored how the government promoted its commercial vision for Barangaroo South by using an urban design competition, which was accompanied by architectural models that graphically represented the site to the public. These territorial tactics have heightened the threat to residential territory by prioritising commercial over residential space. The government’s third and final stage for territorialising Barangaroo South is examined in the following section.

7.3.3 Governmental enforcement: A new commercial vision for Barangaroo South Having planned and promoted its vision for Barangaroo South, the government’s next territorial step has been to ‘enforce’ its preferred commercial vision for the precinct (Sack 1986, 22). I show this ‘enforce[ment]’ has been assisted by private corporations with visions for the area that are aligned with those of the government (Sack 1986, 22). In this section, I demonstrate that the government and private corporations have gained further control of Barangaroo South by using more heavy-handed territorial strategies. I discuss the traditional and new communities concerns for Barangaroo South’s tendering process and how the government has used 99-year leases to its benefit. I describe how the government has ‘enforce[d]’ its commercial vision through Modifications 2 and 4 to Barangaroo’s original Concept Plan (Sack 1986, 22). The government has continued exercising its control through the placement of a hotel in Barangaroo South. A private corporation has assisted in materialising the government’s commercial vision by proposing to include a casino within the hotel. This section also analyses how planning laws have been manipulated in order for the government to fast track its vision for the area. I conclude this section by discussing the rationales for not including social housing within the Barangaroo redevelopment.

241

7.3.3.1 Tendering Barangaroo South and the ninety nine year leases Following the approval of Barangaroo’s Concept Plan, the Delivery Strategy Advisory22 began an Expressions of Interest phase for the commercial procurement of Barangaroo South on the 17th of April 2008. Interested companies were invited to put forward their design proposals, which were based on the approved Concept Plan23 but also incorporated further recommendations from the competition jury (Sussex and Penn 2011). Following another two phases24 on the 20th of December 2009 Lend Lease was the successful bidder and was contracted to construct Barangaroo South25 (Sussex and Penn 2011).

Lend Lease was contracted to redevelop Barangaroo South under the Project Development Agreement. This contract was between Lend Lease and the Barangaroo Delivery Authority26 and authorised Lend Lease to redevelop Barangaroo South. As part of the Project Delivery Agreement, Lend Lease has not been sold any land within Barangaroo. Instead, the government has provided Lend Lease with redevelopment rights using a 99-year lease (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2012c). Lend Lease’s 99-year lease of Barangaroo South is similar to the 99-year leases that have been offered to the private real estate buyers during the sales of social housing properties in Millers and Dawes Points. As with the social housing properties, the 99-year lease contracted to Lend Lease has been another territorial strategy used by the government because it can retain control of a significant and valuable part of Sydney’s foreshore. The 99-year lease also assured control of the government’s assets in order to regulate access to resources in the area into the future.

Already confused by the various design models and rafts of information presented to them, members of the traditional and new communities felt that the tendering process to appoint a developer for Barangaroo South was not transparent. For example, a member of the new community questioned the government’s motivations for redeveloping Barangaroo: ‘[Barangaroo is the result of] a broke government being bought off by big business’ (Survey Respondent #148). Another resident from the new community commented: ‘I would say there has been a bit of bribery and corruption going on [during Barangaroo planning

22 The Delivery Strategy Advisory board was established in 2007. 23 At this stage, the Concept Plan included Modification 1. 24 These phases included the Request for Detailed Proposals (25th of September 2008) and the Final Phase Request for Detailed Proposals (14th of August 2009). 25 Lend Lease are contracted to build Barangaroo South only and not the entire precinct. 26 The Barangaroo Delivery Authority is the government body responsible for Barangaroo’s redevelopment (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2012a). 242 processes] (Survey Respondent #433). Regarding the planning and tendering process one resident from the new community surmised: [Barangaroo’s planning is a] fait accompli’ (Survey Respondent #436). This resident suggested that Barangaroo’s successful tender had been determined before the tendering process began. These residents have questioned whether the government has acted fairly during the tendering process, which has led to further criticism by the community regarding governmental management.

The independent review into Barangaroo’s planning processes found that the tendering process was fair and not driven by developer interests (Sussex and Penn 2011). However, the independent review has done little to quell resident fears. In the following section, I discuss how resident fears have escalated because of the government’s further attempts to enforce its commercial vision for Barangaroo South.

7.3.3.2 Barangaroo South’s commercial office space The independent review of Barangaroo found that the redevelopment of Barangaroo South was one of the more ‘controversial’ aspects of the precinct’s redevelopment (Sussex and Penn 2011, 43). While a commercial vision for Barangaroo South was sealed on approval of Barangaroo’s Concept Plan, Modifications 2 and 4 to the Concept Plan further altered the nature of Barangaroo South27. For example, the independent Sussex and Penn (2011) review found that these modifications raised issues amongst Millers and Dawes Points communities’ (and the wider community) pertaining to the visual bulk and density of the buildings, overshadowing and loss of views. Through Modifications 2 and 4, Lend Lease and the government demonstrated their ability to enforce control over Millers and Dawes Points’ territory. This section examines how Lend Lease and the government used territorial measures to regulate commercial office space in Barangaroo South.

Modification 2 was lodged by the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority on the 25th of June 2008 (prior to Lend Lease’s successful tendering bid and thus any involvement from the construction company) (Lend Lease 2011). Modification 2 sought to increase total GFA from 399 800m² to 519 800m² (Sussex and Penn 2011). This modification meant that 120 000m² of total GFA would be added specifically to Barangaroo South’s commercial office space (representing a 30 percent increase to commercial office space over the Concept Plan).

27 Modification 3 increased total GFA for the entire precinct, but dimensions for Barangaroo South remained unchanged. 243

Given the significant increase to Barangaroo South’s total GFA, the then NSW Planning Minister, Kristina Keneally, referred Modification 2 to the NSW Planning Assessment Commission. The Commission is an independent body designed to self-regulate the government and increase transparency in planning processes (NSW Planning Assessment Commission 2011). The Commission found that Barangaroo South’s increased GFA was necessary to raise floor plate sizes and create a greater supply of premium and A Grade office supply in Sydney (as discussed in Section 7.3.1) (Sussex and Penn 2011). Thus, on the 16th of February 2009 the Commission approved Modification 2 on the basis that the amendment would benefit Barangaroo’s commercial vision and Sydney’s economic position in the Asia Pacific (Sussex and Penn 2011).

The independent review into Barangaroo found that the decision by Kristina Keneally, to refer Modification 2 to the Planning and Assessment Commission was a ‘significant step’ (Sussex and Penn 2011, 19). By referring Modification 2 to the Commission, Barangaroo South’s planning became a more thorough and transparent process and thus the referral should be applauded. While a range of issues raised about Modification 2 were considered (such as social impacts), the decision to approve Modification 2 was based on the ‘strategic importance of the Barangaroo development to the future of Sydney’ (Planning Assessment Commission 2009, 2). Therefore, the motivations that compelled the government to re-image Barangaroo South as a predominately-commercial precinct (that is, to encourage Sydney’s economic dominance in the Asia Pacific as discussed in Section 7.3.1), were also the same reasons that founded the Commission’s decision to approve the modification. Therefore, the Planning and Assessment Commission’s endorsement of Modification 2 has aided the government to enforce its commercial vision for Barangaroo South.

In addition to Modification 2, the government has also exercised its control for Barangaroo South through the more controversial Modification 4. Unlike Modification 2, Modification 4 was lodged by Lend Lease who undertook a Preliminary Environmental Assessment Report to gauge community responses to the proposed amendments28. Following the Preliminary Assessment, Modification 4 was lodged on the 30th of July 2010. The proposed Modification 4 was released to the public for their comments where concerns such as ‘visual bulk and scale of the buildings, overshadowing and view loss’ were raised in the Sussex and Penn (2011,

28 Lend Lease also sought comments from the City of Sydney Council and other government agencies. 244

29) independent review29. Apparently, the concerns of the public were taken into consideration and revisions were made to the design. Modification 4 was adjusted and a Preferred Project Report was submitted on the 12th of November 2010. As a result of Modification 4, the total GFA for the Barangaroo precinct increased by 12.6 percent30 (amongst several other amendments). However, for Barangaroo South, commercial GFA decreased by 10.7 percent31. A decrease in Barangaroo South’s GFA was achieved by reducing the number of towers but increasing maximum building heights, making the highest tower 209m tall32 (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2012c). To put this height in perspective, Barangaroo’s highest tower will be the sixth highest building in Sydney, therefore, Barangaroo South’s buildings will not exceed Sydney’s CBD current skyline (Sussex and Penn 2011). By increasing heights and decreasing GFA, Lend Lease aimed to reduce visual bulk and increase views (Sussex and Penn 2011). Modification 4 was approved on the 16th of December 2010.

Interviews conducted for this thesis included comments by a member of the new community who was pleased with Lend Lease’s Preferred Project Report and proposed changes to the Concept Plan:

I do [like the commercial space in Barangaroo] actually ... I think it’s a perfect place to put more buildings (Respondent #20, 11 October 2010).

However, many more residents from the traditional and new communities were displeased with Barangaroo South’s plans (as corroborated by the findings of the independent Sussex and Penn (2011) review). This resident of the new community expressed:

I know they’ve [Lend Lease] compromised a bit on the height of the buildings. But I still think it’s really foolish to block the sight lines from the city down to the water (Respondent #17, 15 September 2010).

In particular, residents commented on the visual impact the towers in Barangaroo South will have on Millers and Dawes Points: ‘[Barangaroo South is] overwhelming and overbuilt.

29 Modification 4 was also given to the Director General who also requested changes to the design. 30 Modification 3 was approved for 501 000m², which increased to 563 965m². 31 Compared to Modification 2. 32 Block 1 increased by 20m, Block 3 increased by 97m and Block 4 increased by 75m (Sussex and Penn 2011). 245

There goes the neighbourhood, the sun and the harbour views’ (Survey Respondent #159). Another resident of the traditional community said: ‘[Barangaroo South] is scary. Not sure sufficient care will be taken to ensure tall buildings are monuments and not just ugly commercial boxes’ (Survey Respondent #30). Evidently, the aesthetics of Barangaroo South’s towers at the planning stage have already raised concerns and this is likely to intensify when building envelope designs are finalised and then released to the public.

While commercial GFA has decreased in Barangaroo South (and was compensated for by increasing the heights of buildings); Barangaroo’s independent review found that the community overlooked this fact (Sussex and Penn 2011). The decision to increase tower heights was a territorial action performed by a commercial company. This was regarded by Millers and Dawes Points’ residents to be a further imposition on their territory.

7.3.3.3 A hotel and casino for Barangaroo South The independent review of Barangaroo’s planning process detailed how Sydney’s existing hotels are operating at full capacity and how an impending undersupply is placing Sydney’s tourism industry in jeopardy (Sussex and Penn 2011). To address the predicted hotel supply shortage, the design brief and Concept Plan for Barangaroo South both proposed a hotel as part of the Barangaroo redevelopment. However, Lend Lease’s Modification 4 caused further controversy by proposing that the hotel be built over Sydney’s harbour and in front of the existing shoreline by reclaiming land from the harbour (see Figure 7.10). The hotel’s proposed position, which protrudes into Sydney’s harbour was not part of the design brief, Concept Plan or Modifications 1, 2 and 3. The addition of the proposed hotel caused uproar amongst many of Millers and Dawes Points’ residents who felt that its placement did not follow correct design protocol and was overall, poorly designed. A resident from the traditional community expressed: ‘We’ve got the most beautiful harbour in the world and they want to dig it up for that ugly thing’ (Respondent #4, 21 March 2011). Another member from the traditional community commented on how the hotel did not fit in with the character of Sydney:

We’re [Millers and Dawes Points] not Dubai. We don’t want Sydney’s answer to Dubai [high rise] down there, which is fast becoming that with the hotel that they [planning authorities] want to build (Respondent #12, 25 March 2011). 246

Another resident from the traditional community predicted that the hotel’s location (that restricts access to inner Sydney’s foreshore) would pose significant problems for the future:

Letting them [developers] build over water is a dangerous precedent. There are many developers that have ideas for floating monstrosities on Sydney harbour (Respondent #9, 12 October 2011).

Figure 7.10 has been removed due to Copyright restrictions

Figure 7.10: Image of Lend Lease’s proposed hotel protruding into Sydney’s Harbour. Source: (Australian Design Review 2011)

Beyond the design of the hotel, both the traditional and new communities have once again expressed anxiety over the government’s management and planning of the precinct. Unlike Modification 2, Modification 4 was not referred to the Planning Assessment Commission because the NSW Planning Minister argued that Modification 4 did not differ substantially from Modifications 2 or 3. During the period in which Modification 4 had been submitted to the Minister and prior to its approval, the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC33) commenced an examination and review of the corruption risks associated with the process and procedures set out in Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) and the State Environment Planning Policy (Major Development) (SEPP (MD)). At that time, Part 3A of the EP&A Act and the SEPP (MD) nominated the NSW Planning Minister as the sole consent authority for major developments such as Barangaroo (in section 75D of the EP&A Act 1979) (Independent Commission Against Corruption 2010a). Thus, Lend Lease was required to apply directly to the NSW Planning Minster to have Modification 4 approved. On the 13th of December 2010, as a result of the ICAC’s examination and review of Part 3A, ICAC recommended the role of the Planning Assessment Commission and Joint Regional Planning Panels should be given enhanced roles in the assessment and approval of a number of Part 3A applications. The ICAC’s recommendation would give more independence to the decisions made and the consent authority for applications under Part 3A (Independent Commission Against Corruption 2010b). Notwithstanding the recommendations made by the ICAC, three days after the ICAC’s

33 The ICAC’s role is to investigate the practices of the government in order to detect ‘corrupt conduct’ (Independent Commission Against Corruption 2010a, 4). 247 recommendation, the NSW Planning Minister issued approval for Lend Lease’s Modification 4 without any referral to the Planning Assessment Commission on the 16th of December 2010. The ICAC’s recommendation and the NSW Planning Minister’s approval of Modification 4 did not pass unnoticed amongst the traditional and new communities. One member from the new community commented: ‘The state government appears too ready to break existing regulations’ (Survey Respondent #427). A resident from the traditional community stated: ‘[Barangaroo] should have to comply with all the current State legislation planning guides. It shouldn’t have special consideration ... don’t let them [state government] modify any of the planning controls’ (Respondent #9, 12 October 2011).

Both the government and Lend Lease have forced a proposal for a new hotel into Millers and Dawes Points using territorial strategies. By designing Barangaroo South with a hotel that protrudes into Sydney’s Harbour, the government and Lend Lease were perceived to have enforced a massive structure of low architectural and cultural value into spaces that the traditional and new communities perceive as their territory, which includes their harbour. Beyond the design of the hotel, Millers and Dawes Points’ residents have accused the government of not following correct planning protocol and many believed the ICAC’s recommendations should have been followed. Barangaroo’s independent review found that while the government acted lawfully by approving Modification 4, it would have been ‘good public policy’ to have directed Modification 4 to the Planning Assessment Commission (Sussex and Penn 2011, 5). As with Modification 2, the action of referring Modification 4 to the Commission would have meant that approval for the hotel was subject to a more thorough planning process (Sussex and Penn 2011). As a result, the independent review found that the government’s decision to not refer Modification 4 to the Planning Assessment Commission or acknowledge ICAC’s findings had the effect of ‘undermining’ the community’s confidence (Sussex and Penn 2011, 37). On reflection of the government’s actions regarding the location of the hotel, Barangaroo’s independent review recommended that the Barangaroo Delivery Authority re-enter negotiations with Lend Lease to discuss alternative locations for the hotel (Sussex and Penn 2011). The Barangaroo Delivery Authority has complied with the review’s recommendation and has made assurances that the hotel will be moved to an onshore location and that correct planning protocols would be followed in the future (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2011).

248

The issue of the hotel’s location lay dormant until the 17th of February 2012 when James Packer (a wealthy Australian executive34) informed the then NSW Premier, Barry O’Farrell35, that he intended to add a casino and restaurant component inside the hotel and have it constructed within Barangaroo Central (and not Barangaroo South) (Moore 2012b). The plan to include a casino within the hotel earned the praise of both the NSW Premier and the NSW Treasurer, Mike Baird36, citing that the proposal would increase tourism and generate employment (West 2012). Packer’s hotel and casino was planned to occupy 2.8 hectares of Barangaroo Central’s seven hectare site (see Figure 7.11) (Moore, Nicholls and Wade 2012). A Crown Limited representative (Packer’s company) stated that after the hotel’s construction, Barangaroo Central would still have 60 percent of its site available for civic and recreational uses as originally defined in Barangaroo’s Concept Plan (Moore et al. 2012). Packer’s proposed six star hotel-casino received criticism from other government authorities and some community leaders. Both Paul Keating37 and Lord Mayor of Sydney, Clover Moore, expressed their disapproval with the proposed hotel-casino stating its location as one of their major reservations with the development (Moore et al. 2012). For example, the addition of a billion dollar luxury hotel-casino does not accord with Barangaroo Central’s plan to host ‘festivals, entertainment, arts, culture and educational activities’ (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2012e). In response to the proposed hotel-casino, the Barangaroo Delivery Authority claimed that the already approved Modification 4 would not permit Barangaroo Central to host gaming facilities and that the development would likely exceed its eight storey height restriction (Moore et al. 2012).

Figure 7.11 has been removed due to Copyright restrictions

Figure 7.11: An artist’s impression of Packer’s proposed hotel-casino planned for Barangaroo Central (from above). Source: (West 2012)

Packer’s plan to build the hotel-casino in a location already reserved for civic, recreational and educational activities was a heavy-handed territorial strategy enacted by corporate capital. The proposed luxury development would reduce available space set aside for local

34 James Packer is the son of Kerry Packer who was an Australian media magnate with interests in a global scale. The successful family company ‘Consolidated Press Holdings Limited’ was inherited by James Packer. 35 Barry O’Farrell assumed office as the NSW Premier on the 28th of March 2011 after a change of government. 36 Mike Baird assumed office as the NSW Treasurer on the 4th of April 2011. 37 Paul Keating was a former Australian Prime Minister and former Chair of the Barangaroo Design Panel. 249 residents and the wider community alike. In this instance, a business executive has sought to gain control over Millers and Dawes Points’ territory for corporate financial gain. The government has supported Packer’s venture largely because his vision aligned with its own. The development of the luxury hotel-casino would enhance the government’s commercially driven vision for Barangaroo South.

In selling his vision for a hotel-casino in Barangaroo Central, Packer claimed that the development was vital to the tourism industry, stating that 80 percent of Chinese tourists wish to visit casinos (Moore 2012a). Chief Executive of the Australian Transport and Tourism Forum declared his support for Packer’s hotel-casino by stating:

... as we head deeper into the Asian century ... many Asians like having a bet, so providing access to gaming will drive economic activity and create jobs (The Sydney Morning Herald 2012a).

Tourism Queensland’s Chairperson, Don Morris, has disputed this claim expressing that Chinese/Asian tourists are after Australia’s unique natural environment and Indigenous culture and not its gambling facilities (Horin 2012). Morris has also stated that there was no evidence to support the claim that Chinese/Asian tourists would be deterred from Australia if new casinos were not developed (Horin 2012).

Packer has stated that the casino would be a VIP gaming facility only and would not include slot machines (Moore 2012a). The viability a VIP gaming facility was challenged by Dr Charles Livingstone38 who noted: ‘Every casino that has tried to operate without slot [poker] machines goes broke’ (Horin 2012, 18). Such comments by experts in their fields have not deterred Packer who resurrected his plans to include a hotel-casino in August 2012 (Moore and Kruger 2012). In 2012, Packer announced that he planned to build the hotel-casino in Barangaroo South and not in Barangaroo Central. While this move may appear to be a concession, Packer intended to build the hotel-casino on a part of Barangaroo South reserved for parkland (Moore and Kruger 2012). In order for Packer’s new location for the hotel- casino to eventuate, changes must be made to the already approved Concept Plan (Moore and Kruger 2012). Lend Lease also conceded that modifying the Concept Plan would require

38 Dr Charles Livingstone is a gambling expert from the School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine at Monash University. 250 major changes to the development guidelines for Barangaroo South (Moore and Kruger 2012). However, the exact location of the hotel was not information available to the public at the time of writing this thesis. Instead, the public have been informed that the hotel-casino will be vaguely located ‘adjacent to Sydney Harbour and Barangaroo Central’ (Moore and Kruger 2012, 1). The exact preferred location of the hotel-casino by Lend Lease and Packer has not been revealed at time of writing. Following the announcement to move the hotel- casino from Barangaroo Central to Barangaroo South, Lend Lease and Crown Limited revealed that they had signed an agreement giving Crown Limited the rights to work exclusively with Lend Lease to plan the hotel-casino (Crown Limited 2012). The agreement is valid for up to two years, during which time planning approvals would also be sought (Crown Limited 2012; Lend Lease 2012d).

The proposed relocation of the hotel-casino is another territorial strategy similar to the tactics used by the government to sell social housing in Millers and Dawes Points. The government has withheld details about how much social housing will be sold (as discussed in Chapter 6, Section 6.2.2.1) and also the exact location of the hotel-casino. In all likelihood, if previous modifications to the Concept Plan are any indication, official notification of the hotel- casino’s placement will not be communicated until another official modification to the Concept Plan is lodged. If Packer and Lend Lease have knowledge of where the hotel-casino will sit, they have not shared this information with Millers and Dawes Points’ residents because of the public outcry that will likely follow. Avoiding public backlash is the same reason why Housing NSW has not revealed how many social housing properties it will sell in the future (as discussed in Chapter 6, Section 6.2.3.2). However, the information that has been communicated to the public has suggested that Packer and Lend Lease have attempted to enforce the hotel-casino into an area that is already reserved for parkland. This suggests that Packer and Lend Lease are in the process of modifying the already approved Concept Plan for Barangaroo South. If successful, these alliances between the government and corporate capital will have gained further control and dominance over the precinct. The government’s vision for Barangaroo South as a commercial precinct will be realised.

7.3.3.4 Remediating Barangaroo South The approach to remediate Barangaroo’s contaminated land space has been another way the government has enacted strategies of territorialisation. Beneath the concrete foundations of Barangaroo lie the remnants of the area’s industrial past. Toxins and pollutants have been 251 uncovered, which have posed a significant risk to human and marine health (Besser and Murray 2009). These residual pollutants are largely a result of the laissez faire attitude of Sydney’s governance during the 1800s (as discussed Chapter 4, Section 4.4), which allowed the Millers Point Gasworks39 to dispose of a range of toxins on the site that included polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, benzene and cyanide (Besser and Murray 2009). Following the Gaswork’s shutdown, the Maritime Services Board sealed the contaminants with concrete, creating the barren landscape visible today. In 2009, the NSW Environment Protection Authority declared Barangaroo’s land as contaminated under the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997. As the government organisation responsible for state lands, the Authority then became responsible for the precinct’s remediation (Sussex and Penn 2011).

In 2010, the then NSW Planning Minister, Tony Kelley, approved an application by Lend Lease to begin excavation works in Barangaroo South. The independent Sussex and Penn review (2011, 80) noted that this decision ‘agitat[ed] [and] ... undermin[ed] already fragile community confidence’. In addition, the Minister’s decision prompted a newly formed action group, the Australians for Sustainable Development40, to seek an injunction in November 2010, to prevent development on the site (Moore 2011a). The Australians for Sustainable Development argued that the NSW Planning Minister did not consider the needs of the traditional and new communities (and the wider public) or state environmental laws when approving Lend Leases’ application (Tovey and Munro 2010). The court case proceeded until the 3rd of March 2011 when the NSW Planning Minister41 overturned government legislation just two days before the Land and Environment Court was due to make its decision about whether the government had acted appropriately when approving the excavation works (Moore 2011a). More specifically, by overturning government legislation, the NSW Planning Minister eliminated the need for Barangaroo’s remediation to meet the demands of its own State Environmental Planning Policy 5542 (SEPP 55) (Moore 2011c). This rendered Barangaroo as the only polluted area in NSW to be exempt from the remediation regulations within SEPP 55 (Moore 2011c). This decision effectively allowed excavation to begin in Barangaroo South, as the Court’s findings were now irrelevant. One

39 The Millers Point Gasworks occupied the site from 1803 to 1921 (Robins 2010). 40 Australians for Sustainable Development ‘is an alliance of concerned local government [including Leichardt, Marrickville and the City of Sydney Councils], community, environment, and business groups seeking reform NSW planning laws to benefit and improve local communities’ (Australians for Sustainable Development 2011c). 41 Tony Kelly was the NSW planning Minister who made the authorisations. 42 SEPP 55 provides regulations for the remediation of contaminated lands (NSW Government 1998). 252 day after exempting Barangaroo from SEPP 55 remediation requirements, the NSW Planning Minister authorised three more separate planning approvals for Barangaroo (Moore 2011d). These approvals included authorisations to begin building a high rise tower, an underground car park in Barangaroo South as well as the naturalistic headland (Moore 2011d). To deal with the contamination, Lend Lease were given permission to trial a new remediation technique (Moore 2011d). The Minister’s authorisations were delivered just hours before the Federal government at that time entered caretaker mode43, which was criticised by the Australians for Sustainable Development:

The [NSW] Minister made that decision [before the Federal government entered caretaker mode] ... to avoid legal review and silence the voices of communities around the harbour who are concerned about the impact of this inappropriate development (Australians for Sustainable Development 2011b).

The NSW Planning Minister’s actions of overturning legislation and authorising planning approvals produced public outcry from residents and community leaders who believed the Minister’s actions were underhanded. In response to the NSW Planning Minister’s decision to remove Barangaroo from the requirements of SEPP 55, a representative from the National Trust of Australia declared that the government was ‘treating the planning system as a pick- and-mix sweet shop. It can take the conditions they like and have those they don’t like removed’ (Moore 2011c, 1). A resident from the traditional community commented:

They [the government] passed an Act in parliament that said this [remediation] is going to happen. You’ve got no rights of appeal or objection (Respondent #1, 9 September 2010).

The Judge who handed down the decision to dismiss the Australians for Sustainable Development’s injunction criticised the lack of guarantees that would have ensured the success of Barangaroo’s remediation given its exemption from SEPP 55 (Moore 2011b). Barangaroo’s contamination and exemption from SEPP 55 was also examined during the independent review of Barangaroo, which stated:

43 The Australian government entered caretaker mode while waiting for the results of a general election. 253

It is ... inexplicable to this Review that the Department of Planning and the former Minister for Planning should have approved work on the site without the completion of processes required by SEPP No 55 ... This action had the effect of undermining already fragile community confidence ... leaving many people with the view that the proponents had something to hide (2011, 8).

The authors of the Barangaroo review identified that governmental management had once again damaged the community’s confidence concerning Barangaroo’s development, which has added another reason for Millers and Dawes Points’ residents to distrust the government. In this case, the government had manipulated legislation to gain further control over Millers and Dawes Points by imposing its commercial vision for Barangaroo South at the expense of the traditional community. By overturning legislation, the government ensured that it not only acted lawfully but also accelerated the process by which its commercial vision for Barangaroo South could be executed. Through the NSW Planning Minister’s actions, the government was able to expedite Lend Lease’s access to Barangaroo South (and therefore Barangaroo South’s redevelopment) by fast tracking an act of further territorialisation.

7.3.3.5 Residential space in Barangaroo South A commercial vision for Barangaroo South (and Central) has also been enforced through the shortage of residential space allocated to the area. Between 775 and 800 apartments are to be constructed within the precinct for a residential community of around 1200 individuals (Lend Lease 2012e). Residential housing across Barangaroo will represent no more than 25 percent of the whole development and is expected to increase the ‘vitality and safety of the area’ (Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority 2005, 6). Of Barangaroo’s total residential accommodation, 2.3 percent has been classified as affordable housing. This means that out of a maximum of 800 dwellings constructed in Barangaroo, 18 properties will be available as ‘affordable housing’ (City of Sydney Council 2011).

Barangaroo’s independent review determined that the quantity of residential housing in Barangaroo South seemed appropriate for the development as a whole44 (Sussex and Penn 2011). However, the review suggested that the number of affordable housing units should be

44 The independent review found that the amount of residential housing was appropriate but ‘subject to the design’ of Barangaroo (Sussex and Penn 2011, 45). 254 doubled to increase housing diversity on the site45 (Sussex and Penn 2011). While the Barangaroo Delivery Authority has noted this recommendation, it has not appeared to be committed to the idea. At time of writing, the Barangaroo Delivery Authority agreed to ‘explore the delivery of more housing for key workers ... either within Barangaroo or an appropriate offsite location’ (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2011, 31). The Authority has also stated that it will ‘investigate the potential to deliver increased housing for key workers’ (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2011, 31). While, the Barangaroo Delivery Authority has noted that it will consider more affordable housing for the site, it has clearly not committed to a more equitable distribution of properties. Instead, the Authority has entertained the ‘potential’ to include further affordable housing, but at an ‘offsite location’ (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2011, 31). Given the history of governmental management in the area, particularly for low-income earners, the future of affordable housing for the precinct is not secure. Therefore, maintaining a demographically balanced community, which the then Housing NSW Minister had previously claimed as being important to creating ‘strong communities’ (as discussed in Chapter 5, Section 5.3.1.1), will not likely be achieved (Minister for Housing 2008, 1).

The Barangaroo Review has also added that given Barangaroo’s close proximity to Millers and Dawes Points and thus its social housing, social housing is not necessary within the development (Sussex and Penn 2011). This finding is questionable given that the concentration of Millers and Dawes Points’ social housing stock is declining through the sell offs (99-year leases). While it is not known if the authors of the Barangaroo Review were aware of Millers and Dawes Points’ social housing sales, the inclusion of social housing in Barangaroo would potentially compensate for this loss. This replacement would be in accordance with Housing NSW’ claims that the numbers of social housing lost to the sell offs will be restored elsewhere in Sydney (see Chapter 6, Box 6.1). In addition, providing ‘affordable housing’ does not equate to social housing. Housing NSW has previously acknowledged that balanced communities (i.e. communities that have equal proportions of both private and social housing) create ‘strong communities’ (Minister for Housing 2008, 1). Even if maximum numbers of affordable housing units were included, the residential community in Barangaroo will remain far from balanced.

45 The Barangaroo Review’s argument for doubling the quantity of affordable housing is in line with the City of Sydney Council’s goal to have 15 percent of all its housing stock fall into the affordable housing category (City of Sydney Council 2011). 255

Real estate values are likely to be high for Barangaroo’s residential precinct. Some real estate agents have predicted median prices for apartments will range from A$800, 000 to one million Australian dollars (RA1 Real Estate 2011). Thus, it is reasonable to assume that most of Barangaroo’s residential housing will only be available to high-income earners adding to the precinct’s exclusivity. As previously discussed in Chapter 6 (Section 6.3.3.2), concentrations of high-income earners living within apartment developments often live within ‘privatopias’ (McKenzie 1994, 9). Given Barangaroo’s proximity to existing ‘privatopias’ in Millers and Dawes Points, it is likely that Barangaroo’s ‘privatopias’ will exhibit similar characteristics. Along with Millers and Dawes Points’ ‘privatopias’, the added benefit of being independent is that Barangaroo’s residential community will not have to engage with the wider community. One member from the traditional community commented on how a residential community in Barangaroo would reinforce the area’s exclusivity:

To me they’re [the government are] trying to make an elite enclave in Sydney at Barangaroo. It’s not for the people [traditional community] ... There’s a marina going in isn’t it? So it’s elite. So we’re [traditional community are] finished (Respondent #12, 25 March, 2011).

Based on the traditional community’s experiences with the ‘privatopias’ located in Millers and Dawes Points, the apartment developments in Barangaroo South will likely offer a reasonable amount of privacy and security from the surrounds. Barangaroo’s ‘privatopias’ will allow its residents to regulate their urban spaces and therefore their social interactions with the communities around them.

As discussed in Section 7.3.1 of this chapter, the NSW state government is operating under a neoliberal paradigm, which is pushing the transformation of a redundant industrial precinct into Sydney’s new economic hub. Part of this transformation includes policies that have approved new build residential complexes. Similar to the luxury residential apartments of Walsh Bay (as discussed in Chapter 4, Section 4.7), the new residential developments are the next instalment of Millers and Dawes Points gentrification processes. As with the Walsh Bay residences, these newer apartment developments will introduce more members of the new community who will continue to change the socio-economic demographic mix of the area. 256

This section (7.3.3) has explored how both the government and private corporations have enacted territorial methods to achieve maximum economic returns from Barangaroo South. The government enforced its vision for Barangaroo South through 99-year leases that ensured the government maintained control of a valuable part of Sydney’s foreshore over the long term. Residents of the traditional and new communities believed that the tendering process for Barangaroo South was not transparent. The government further cemented its commercial vision for the precinct by enforcing Modifications 2 and 4 to Barangaroo’s concept plan. These modifications assisted the government’s vision for the precinct by increasing the amount and scale of commercial services Barangaroo South could provide. The decision to build a hotel-casino over and into Sydney’s harbour was another territorial strategy that caused outrage amongst the traditional and new communities. Furthermore, the heavy- handed territorial actions continued when the government overturned legislation that would have ensured Barangaroo’s appropriate remediation within the requirements of SEPP 55. By not having to comply with legislation, the government made certain its commercial vision would not be delayed. The government’s territorial actions continued when it did not allocate space for social housing in Barangaroo South. Social housing residents, therefore, would have no place in the new upmarket version of Barangaroo.

7.3.4 A rising sense of placelessness for members of the traditional community Thus far, this chapter has examined the range of territorial strategies used by the government and private corporations to gain control and enforce their vision for Barangaroo South. While Barangaroo will not physically displace Millers and Dawes Points’ residents, the effects of the redevelopment will not be restricted to the immediate vicinity. Chapter 6 (Section 6.4) considered how territorial actions, occurring within Millers and Dawes Points, were causing an increasing sense of placelessness for members of the traditional community. In this section, I detail how the changes produced by Barangaroo’s redevelopment will, according to the traditional community, undermine the value and ‘significance’ of Millers and Dawes Points, to them (Relph 1976, 143). This loss of significance indicates that members of the traditional community would continue to experience an increasing sense of placelessness. I concentrate on how Barangaroo South’s new residents and workers, high-rise towers and the hotel-casino would exacerbate a growing sense of placelessness amongst members of the traditional community, the context of existing demographic change. The data gathered for this thesis suggested that such concerns, and outcomes, do not apply to members of the new community. That is, while residents of the new community are also displeased with parts of 257

Barangaroo’s development, there is no evidence to suggest that Barangaroo has challenged their perceived ties to this urban space.

As highlighted in Chapter 6 (Section 6.4.1.1), members of the traditional community have expressed that the influx of new residents were impacting on their ‘deepest levels of place’ because the new arrivals were not maintaining the community atmosphere (Relph 1976, 143). This ‘cutting [of] roots’ was seen to emphasise the traditional community’s sense of placelessness in Millers and Dawes Points. Based on this trend, it is likely that Barangaroo South’s new residents will also not develop connections with Millers and Dawes Points’ residents and particularly not with residents of the traditional community. One resident of the traditional community explained how Barangaroo South will accentuate the socio-economic divide already apparent within the area: ‘When Barangaroo gets developed it [community divide] will get more and more exaggerated and [social] housing tenants will lose out and will be gone’ (Respondent #9, 12 October 2011). More generally, members of the traditional community have predicted that the workers employed within Barangaroo South will also detract from the current ‘urban village’ atmosphere of Millers and Dawes Points. For example, this resident commented on how these workers would increase pedestrian traffic:

The idea is that there could be more people who are not residents walking around. It’s foot traffic you can’t conceive. It’ll be like living in Martin Place [a retail mall in Sydney’s CBD with high pedestrian activity] (Respondent #3, 4 October 2010).

Another resident of the traditional community predicted that:

Eventually they’re [Barangaroo South’s workers] going to have an office party. And they’ll take their drinks with them and dump [empty glasses and bottles] in the area. [The workers will say:] ‘These are only peasants down here in Millers Point. Just dump it’ (Respondent #4, 21 March 2011).

These residents of the traditional community have described that area’s ‘urban village’ feel and associated community atmosphere will be diminished upon the arrival of these new individuals because they will contribute to the already existing social segregation in Millers and Dawes Points (see Chapter 5, Section 5.2.4.1). These new residents and workers entering 258 the area have therefore been predicted to sever the traditional community’s connections to their ‘deepest levels [of] place’ (Relph 1976, 143). This suggests that Millers and Dawes Points will lose ‘significance’ for some members of the traditional community, which points towards a growing sense of placelessness for these individuals (Relph 1976, 143).

As discussed in Chapter 6 (Section 6.4.1.3), the traditional community were not enticed by Walsh Bay’s cultural scene or range of restaurants. As a result, visitation rates to Walsh Bay were lower for the traditional community than for the new community. Some residents of the traditional community have predicted that the range of services on offer in Barangaroo South will also not add to the ‘diversity’ of Millers and Dawes Points (Relph 1976, 143). This member of the traditional community described why Barangaroo South will not be of value to them: ‘It’ll [Barangaroo will] be popular for a while, but it will drop off. Because to get there is difficult [and] there’ll be nothing to do or see (Respondent #12, 25 March 2011). Another member of the traditional community similarly added: ‘There’s just going to be offices down there [Barangaroo South] so come Friday afternoon it’s all just going to be dead’ (Respondent #7, 25 March 2011). According to these residents, Barangaroo South will not add value to Millers and Dawes Points because the commercial nature of the redevelopment (along with Walsh Bay) will accentuate the ‘uniformity’ of the area. If Barangaroo South is not considered a significant space by members of the traditional community, it would contribute to their growing sense of placelessness.

Some residents of the traditional community also believed that the decision to introduce high- rise towers into Barangaroo South would impinge on their view of Millers and Dawes Points as part of Sydney’s history. A member of the traditional community noted how Barangaroo South would impact on Millers and Dawes Points’ heritage and character:

[Because of Barangaroo South’s towers] the character of the area may change, become sterile, cold, clinical, super-functional, [and it will] lose its essential charm and quintessential Australian colour (Survey Respondent #24).

For this resident (quoted above) the commodification of the area through the introduction of high-rise buildings would ‘erode’ at the histories of a quintessential Australia (Relph 1976, 143). This decaying of a culturally and historically significant place would therefore detract from the value of Millers and Dawes Points. This devaluing of Millers and Dawes Points 259 suggests that residents of the traditional community would experience a sense of placelessness.

The hotel-casino will be another exclusionary space in Barangaroo South because it will allow entry only to VIP members. Irrespective of the hotel’s claimed ‘6-star’ rating, casinos do not generally have a positive reputation with the wider public. In response to the announcement that a casino would be included within Barangaroo South, a member of the public commented on an online forum: ‘One casino in town is more than enough46 ... That plan for the Barangaroo site is wrong. The Hotel [casino] dominates the whole site’ (Badamj2000 2012). This extremely costly venture (currently estimated at A$1 billion dollars), will of course, need to generate income (Gaming 2013). In the event that its high-roller status shifts due to economic demands, it is possible that slot machines may be installed to make the hotel-casino viable in the long-term (as discussed in Section 7.3.3.3). If this occurs, it is likely that the hotel-casino would then be open to all members of the public; in particular, the site will be much more available to another class of gamblers. One journalist has predicted that Barangaroo would then be transformed into a ‘gambling den’ that would stain the area with ‘tackiness and misery associated with casinos everywhere’ (The Sydney Morning Herald 2012b). A resident of the traditional community stated:

I’d say it [Barangaroo] will end up like Pyrmont and Darling Harbour, full of apartments and hotels and just a tackiness that’s not really going to make Millers Point special (Respondent #8, 30 June 2010).

This member of the traditional community predicted how the entire Barangaroo precinct will detract from the character of Millers and Dawes Points:

Barangaroo will be the end of history for Millers Point. It will definitely be the beginning of the end of us as a community ... Once Barangaroo is finished, done and dusted and new, they’ll be looking at us [for redevelopment of urban space] next (Respondent #1, 25 March, 2011).

46 Sydney already has one casino located at Pyrmont, which is located 1.5km from Millers and Dawes Points. 260

Another resident of the traditional community was certain of Barangaroo South’s impact: ‘By another 20 years, the area [Millers and Dawes Points] will have no character at all’ (Survey Respondent #35). For these residents, Barangaroo South’s redevelopment will cause Millers and Dawes Points to lose its culturally significant character, thus contributing to their feelings of placelessness in the area.

Section (7.3) has explored the range of territorial methods the government and private corporations have used to gain control of Barangaroo South’s redevelopment by drawing on Sack’s (1986) three interdependent relationships of territoriality. I have discussed how the government has re-imaged Barangaroo South as an act of ‘classification’ (Sack 1986, 28). This re-imaging was encouraged by the state government’s neoliberal centric 2005 and 2010 Metropolitan Strategies, which clearly stipulated the importance of enhancing and maintaining Sydney’s financial position in the Asia Pacific. Barangaroo South has been largely implicated in these strategies as the precinct has been zoned as a commercial and financial space. Therefore, Barangaroo South is expected to contribute to the government’s commercial vision for the area. Further prompting the government to re-image Barangaroo South as a commercial hub was Sydney’s projected office supply shortage. The decision to re-image Barangaroo South as a predominately commercial precinct initiated a culture of mistrust for both the traditional and new communities. Millers and Dawes Points’ residents have raised concerns about the transformation of public space into a commercial place.

In line with Sack’s (1986, 28) second interdependent relationship of territoriality, the government also ‘communicat[ed]’ its commercial vision to Millers and Dawes Points’ residents and the wider community. This occurred through place naming and design competitions, which promoted the government’s commercial vision. Through these competitions, Millers and Dawes Points’ residents became aware that Barangaroo South’s redevelopment would affect their claim to urban space. For example, through Barangaroo South’s design, the government had expressed its focus on serving the financial sector and not providing housing for residents in Sydney’s inner city. The government demonstrated that maintaining residential precincts in the inner city was not a priority. This posed yet another threat to Millers and Dawes Points’ ‘urban village’.

The actions of the government and private companies have also embodied Sack’s (1986, 22) third interdependent relationship of territoriality, ‘enforcing control’. The government and 261 private corporations have enforced their vision for Barangaroo South by using heavy-handed territorial strategies. Residents of the traditional and new communities believed that the tendering process for Barangaroo South was one such heavy-handed territorial strategy. In addition, the 99-year lease sold to Lend Lease is reminiscent of how the government used 99- year leases as a territorial strategy during the sales of social housing. Through Barangaroo South’s 99-year lease, the government has ensured that it will remain in control of the precinct in the long-term. The government also enforced its economic vision for Barangaroo South by increasing total commercial GFA with Modification 2. Modification 4 also proved to be controversial because tower heights for Barangaroo South were increased. Residents of the traditional and new communities perceived Lend Lease’s decision to place the hotel over Sydney’s harbour as another territorial strategy. The hotel caused further controversy when a wealthy Australian businessperson (James Packer) proposed to put a casino within the hotel. Millers and Dawes Points’ residents considered this to be a heavy-handed act because the hotel-casino was slated for construction within Barangaroo Central, which was a space reserved for public education and recreation facilities. Government representatives were supportive of the investor’s venture. His vision contributed to the government’s push for a commercial vision of the precinct. These territorial acts continued when the government overturned legislation allowing Lend Lease to begin developing Barangaroo South without having to comply with the requirements of SEPP 55. By overturning legislation, the government had ensured that its commercial vision would not be held back by environmental and safety issues. The government further enforced its commercial vision for Barangaroo South by limiting residential space for Barangaroo South. Residential space will only be available to the private residential market with only a few ‘affordable’ properties. No properties have been designated for social housing residents regardless of the fact that social housing stock is disappearing nearby.

I concluded this Section (7.3) with an analysis of how Barangaroo South will contribute to a growing sense of placelessness for residents of the traditional community in Millers and Dawes Points. Barangaroo South’s new workers and residents, high-rise towers and the hotel-casino were viewed as threats to the unique character of Millers and Dawes Points. This loss of ‘significance’ in place indicates that members of the traditional community would continue to experience an increasing sense of placelessness (Relph 1976, 143).

262

7.4 Territorialisation of Barangaroo’s Headland Park Barangaroo’s headland park (see Figure 7.3) has been the subject of less attention (as compared to Barangaroo South) across Millers and Dawes Points’ communities, the wider public and the media. However, the headland park has not been immune to the territorial actions of the government. In this section, I show that the government’s territorial strategies have once again reflected Sack’s (1986) three facets of territoriality. I focus on how Barangaroo’s headland park has been re-imaged as an act of ‘classification’, ‘communicated’ to Millers and Dawes Points’ residents (and the wider community) as well as ‘enforced’ into Barangaroo’s redevelopment (1986, 22-28).

As part of Barangaroo’s redevelopment, Barangaroo’s headland park has been re-imaged from a redundant industrial precinct to include ‘picnic areas, walking paths, water access, tidal rock pools, trees and flora consistent with the pre-European settlement era’ (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2011). In addition, a new cultural centre will be constructed within the headland and a 300 space car park will also be built beneath it (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2012c). The construction of the headland park is being funded by Lend Lease (and not by the public or the government) (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2012c) and construction is anticipated to be completed by 2015 (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2012f).

Barangaroo would have better contributed to Sydney’s position as a financial hub in the Asia Pacific if the entire site had been zoned for commercial and financial activities. That is, the government’s financial vision would have been achieved more effectively if greater numbers of commercial activities existed on the site. Instead, the government has offset its commercial vision for Barangaroo South by declaring that the northern section of Barangaroo would become public space available to all. One resident from Millers and Dawes Points’ traditional community considered this offset fair: ‘What I liked about it [Barangaroo’s headland park] was refurbing [sic] the landscape back to its original form. If you need a hotel development to pay for that, then great’ (Respondent #9, 12 October 2011). Another resident of the new community stated: ‘[Barangaroo’s] parkland is needed for family [sic] – the commercial aspect [Barangaroo South] is an acceptable price for the parkland’ (Survey Respondent #425). One resident from the new community offered that the commercial development of Barangaroo South would be of mutual benefit to the headland park: ‘I don’t think it’s practical to make the whole thing a park. I don’t think people would use it. It needs life in it’ (Respondent #20, 11 October 2010). In addition to the headland park, Barangaroo 263

Central has also been reserved for ‘civic, educational and recreation spaces’ (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2011). By re-imaging the headland park (and Barangaroo Central) as a public space, the government has partly compensated for some concerns raised by the traditional and new communities such as their claims to urban space (as previously explored in Section 7.3.1). As a result, the re-imaging of Barangaroo’s headland park has been much more favourably received than the government’s commercial vision for Barangaroo South. However, other members from both the traditional and new communities believed that it would have been fairer if Barangaroo’s entire precinct were available to the public and not just a part of it. A resident from the new community stated: ‘The entire site could have been transformed into a garden area to match the Botanical Gardens47. Great leisure potential, lost’ (Survey Respondent #178). This member from the traditional community has similarly stated: ‘It [Barangaroo] should be made into a park rather than a high rise development’ (Survey Respondent #15). While the amount of public space has been an issue for some residents of the traditional and new communities, the headland park has been re-imaged from an inaccessible precinct into parkland for the public to engage with.

In line with Sack’s (1986, 28) second interdependent relationship of territoriality, the government also ‘communic[ated]’ the purpose of the headland park to Millers and Dawes Points’ communities and the wider public. The Barangaroo Delivery Authority claimed that the headland park has been inspired by the natural headland that existed prior to European settlement (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2012f). To achieve a ‘naturalistic’ looking headland, the current concrete foundations of the site (a legacy from the area’s maritime past) will be demolished to install ‘native bushland and ... rocky sandstone ledges and tidal pools’ (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2011, 9). The Barangaroo Delivery Authority claimed that the effect of recreating a natural headland would be twofold. First, the Authority believed that a naturalistic headland would enable individuals to connect with a pre-European past and more specifically, an Indigenous one (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2012f). Second, the headland has been designed to specifically allow the public to reconnect with the harbour (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2012f). Since the Barangaroo precinct has been off limits to the public for around 100 years (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2012c), the government has aimed to ‘provide a new connection between people and the harbour’ (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2012f) to allow individuals to physically ‘touch the water’ (Barangaroo Delivery

47 The Royal Botanical Gardens are a publically accessible parkland located near Sydney’s CBD. 264

Authority 2012c). The Authority has assumed that by allowing individuals to reconnect with the landscape physically, an attachment to place will follow, which may assist in the development of the residents’ senses of pride of place.

The Barangaroo Delivery Authority also expressed that the headland park will also represent a ‘symbol of country’ (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2011, 12) where it is intended to recognise Sydney’s both modern and Indigenous histories (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2012f). The ‘symbol of country’, will allow individuals to connect to the headland park ‘in a deeper way, in a spiritual as well as physical sense, where people feel a sense of belonging’ (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2011, 12). Through this attachment to place, Millers and Dawes Points’ residents and the public more generally, may renew their connection to a place that was previously inaccessible. This heightened emotional connection to place may renew their affliction for the landscape and thus, their senses of place.

However, of particular concern to members of Millers and Dawes Points’ traditional and new communities is how the headland park has been ‘enforc[ed]’ into Barangaroo’s development plans (1986, 22). Both the HTBI scheme and the subsequent Concept Plan included the original concrete tarmac within Barangaroo’s design. These early designs were later overturned with Modification 3, which introduced a more ‘naturalistic’ looking headland that aimed to incorporate some elements that existed on the site prior to European occupation. In addition, the installation of a more naturalistic headland park (that continues into Barangaroo Central) was not designed to retain the passenger cruise terminal in operation at Barangaroo. The passenger terminal has since been relocated to an offsite location in Sydney48. One member of the traditional community believed that this action of reinstating one history has removed another. The concrete tarmac and the passenger terminal will therefore further disconnect Millers and Dawes Points from its maritime heritage:

[Barangaroo’s] plans do not necessarily reflect much of the history of the area. [The plans are] definitely not keeping much of the maritime aspect of its last 100 years worth of history (Respondent #24, 6 September 2010).

48 The passenger cruise terminal has been relocated to White Bay in Balmain, Sydney (Munro 2011). 265

Another resident from the new community stated: ‘[Barangaroo’s plans are] absolutely disgraceful. The ships should never have left the harbour’ (Survey Respondent #165). The concrete tarmac and its passenger cruise terminal offered residents of the traditional community some of the last tangible links to Millers and Dawes Points’ maritime history. Thus, by redeveloping the northern part of Barangaroo the government stands to remove a historical maritime narrative, which is a theme central to the traditional community’s senses of place (as discussed in Chapter 5, Section 5.2.1). The links to Millers and Dawes Points’ times of hardship and labouring will be lost in order to recreate a ‘symbol of country’ in Barangaroo (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2011, 12). Removing both the concrete tarmac and the last of the maritime services will therefore weaken the traditional community’s residents’ connections to their histories and senses of place. The existing links to the area’s industrial past will be removed to create an unrecognisable landscape that does not reflect the elements most significant to some members of the traditional community. This increased disconnection to the landscape points towards a growing sense of placelessness for these residents.

Regardless of the emotional ties that members of the traditional community may harbour for the concrete tarmac and the passenger terminal, the Australian Heritage Council and the NSW Heritage Council have stated that these items have no cultural heritage significance (Sussex and Penn 2011). In opposition to this standpoint, the National Trust of Australia (NSW) has said:

It would be regrettable ... that the NSW Government would choose to demolish, dismantle and bury the heritage at Millers Point. Such ill- considered actions would effectively erase Governor Macquarie’s legacy in creating a viable and productive maritime industry at Barangaroo (National Trust of Australia 2010).

The authors of Barangaroo’s independent review were sympathetic to the traditional and new communities’ attachment to Millers and Dawes Points’ maritime activities (Sussex and Penn 2011). The review suggested that the construction of a ferry hub within Barangaroo would ‘reinstate that “living link”’ between Barangaroo and its maritime heritage (Sussex and Penn 2011, 81). The Barangaroo Delivery Authority has agreed to consider the implementation of a ferry terminal within Barangaroo (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2011). The ferry 266 terminal (now proposed for Barangaroo South) would provide a reference for the traditional community to the history of the Barangaroo site. However, whether or not this ‘living link’ would be enough to reinstate a tangible sense of place for residents of the traditional community, which is so tied to the maritime history of the area, is a question for future research (Sussex and Penn 2011, 81).

This section demonstrated that the NSW state government has once again used territorial strategies that reflect Sack’s (1986) three interdependent relationships of territoriality to construct Barangaroo’s headland park. I explained that the government’s re-imaging of the headland park has been generally well received by the traditional and new communities. Some residents have indicated that the park was a good way to balance the commercial classification of Barangaroo South. The government also ‘communicat[ed]’ (Sack 1986, 28) that the precinct would represent a ‘symbol of country’ (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2011, 12). Through this branding, the government expressed that a more natural landscape would help people to reconnect to this area of Sydney, which was largely inaccessible in the past. From Millers and Dawes Points’ residents’ perspectives, the government also ‘enforc[ed]’ a more naturalistic looking headland through Modification 3 (1986, 22). Some residents of the traditional community argued that the instalment of a more naturalistic headland removed the last remaining visual link to the area’s maritime past. By removing the concrete tarmac, visual connections to place would be more difficult for some residents of the traditional community. This would result in a sense of disengagement and exacerbate feelings of placelessness.

7.5 Community mistrust and a politics of resistance This section revisits how the territorial actions of the government and private corporations associated with the redevelopment of Barangaroo have produced a culture of mistrust amongst residents of the traditional community. As members of the new community were not directly and negatively impacted by the territorial actions of the government in the past (such as the social housing sell offs), the government’s management of the Barangaroo precinct has initiated a culture of mistrust for this group. This section explores that from the traditional and new communities’ perspectives, the public was not given enough input into Barangaroo’s redevelopment. It documents the various ways Barangaroo’s redevelopment has been resisted by residents of Millers and Dawes Points (and the wider community), which includes the formation of resident action groups. I show that these resistance efforts have

267 demonstrated the residents’ desire but ultimately limited ability to effectively modify the outcome of Barangaroo’s redevelopment.

Chapter 6 (Section 6.2.2.1) considered how the government’s territorial actions have generated a culture of mistrust amongst residents of the traditional community. This mistrust was fuelled by the government’s land resumptions during the years of the plague (in the late 19th and early 20th centuries) and later heightened during the sales of social housing. Barangaroo’s redevelopment process has further intensified anxieties amongst members of the traditional community and also initiated a culture of mistrust for residents of the new community. As noted throughout this chapter, the territorial actions of both the government and private corporations have caused concerns for the traditional and new communities. I explained in Section 7.3.2.2 how residents were concerned about the series of modifications made to the HTBI winning design to produce Barangaroo’s Concept Plan. Following on from the design of the precinct, residents of the traditional and new communities expressed their unease about Barangaroo’s tendering process because many residents believed that the appointment of Lend Lease was not thorough and transparent (see Section 7.3.3.1). Furthermore, the approval of Modification 4, which placed the hotel over water on Sydney’s Harbour caused further outrage amongst the traditional and new communities (see Section 7.3.3.3). Later, the decision to include a casino within the hotel was also criticised by Millers and Dawes Points’ residents (see Section 7.3.3.3). The government’s manipulation of planning laws that exempted Barangaroo from the requirements of SEPP 55 also proved to be highly controversial. This action received a reprimand from Barangaroo’s independent review and caused further outrage amongst Millers and Dawes Points’ communities (see Section 7.3.3.4). The culmination of these territorial actions enacted by the government and private corporations has served to fuel the culture of mistrust for Millers and Dawes Points’ residents.

Compounding the traditional and new communities’ concerns is the perceived lack of community consultation provided by the redevelopment authorities. This resident of the new community rehearsed her/his experiences with the attempts at community consultation by redevelopment authorities:

[Community consultation is] terrible ... I find it distressing that they are behaving the way they are ... They’ve lost all touch and the whole concept of 268

consultation is just tokenistic ... nobody ever consulted me (Respondent #18, 10 October 2010).

One resident of the traditional community described how community consultation had no impact on Barangaroo’s redevelopment:

[Redevelopment authorities are] making all the necessary noises and having all the necessary bits of paper so ... it looks like community consultation. But if someone in the community stands up and says: ‘Why are we having this development in the first place?’ ... You’d be asked to leave. So you can only really affect a little bit of detail (Respondent #9, 12 October 2011).

Additionally, community consultation appears to have been disproportionately focussed on the more favourable aspects of Barangaroo’s development. For example, the government’s focus on the headland park has been particularly prevalent during public information sessions49. Following an information session I attended, a member of the audience expressed to me that the disproportionate attention focussed on the headland park made Barangaroo South ‘the elephant in the room’ (pers. comm. 2010). Barangaroo’s independent review concurred by stating that ‘consultation ... has been more a selling of a decision than a genuine effort at community engagement to improve the outcome’ (Sussex and Penn 2011, 83). The government has given greater emphasis to the headland park because it has been more favourably received by the public than Barangaroo South. The government had attempted to minimise community backlash by concentrating their communication efforts on a more desirable part of the redevelopment: Barangaroo’s headland park.

The shortage of adequate information being communicated to Millers and Dawes Points’ residents (and the wider community) has resulted in a general lack of understanding about Barangaroo’s redevelopment (see Section 7.2.1). This general confusion combined with the residents’ previous experiences with governmental management in the area, has caused further suspicions. As noted in Section 7.3.1, this governmental mistrust is constructed around the communities’ perception that the government is motivated by finance to redevelop

49 Various public information sessions have occurred during Barangaroo’s planning and design stage. I attended three public information sessions on the 24th of May 2010 (Customs House), 23rd of February 2010 (Recital Hall) and the 1st of September 2010 (Sydney Opera House). 269 the Barangaroo site with little regard for existing residents. A member from the new community explained: ‘[Barangaroo has been] commandeered so easily by a major developer and the public is being treated as mushrooms growing in the dark. Just feed them any rubbish you like’ (Respondent #18, 10 October 2010). One resident from the traditional community similarly expressed: ‘ ... there’s been no community consultation at all ... They’ll play act but the dollar force is driving this [Barangaroo’s redevelopment]’ (Respondent #16, 28 September 2010). This resident of the new community also argued:

Planners and developers are hell bent on destroying this beautiful and unique area of Sydney. Unfortunately, because their plans are not transparent, they will most likely succeed. A great crime is being carried out underneath our noses (Survey Respondent #165).

As with the sales of social housing properties, Millers and Dawes Points’ residents have not been mere recipients of the major changes that are occurring in their local area. The communities have responded to the changes occurring in the area with their own politics of resistance. With the assistance of the other concerned citizens from the wider community, several action groups have been formed to oppose certain aspects of Barangaroo’s redevelopment. The three main resident action groups who are opposed to Barangaroo’s redevelopment included the ‘Barangaroo Action Group50’, ‘Friends of Barangaroo51’ and the ‘Australians for Sustainable Development52’. These groups have organised protests at various stages of Barangaroo’s redevelopment53. For example, on the 26th of June 2010 the ‘Friends of Barangaroo’ action group held a protest that campaigned against Barangaroo’s design (Carr 2010). In particular, the 500 people that attended the protest opposed the hotel’s location over water on Sydney’s harbour, the bulk and scale of Barangaroo South as well as the removal of the passenger terminal (Carr 2010). However, as protests continued, the number of attending campaigners began to decline. On the 12th of September 2010, another protest was held to oppose the major issues pertaining to Barangaroo South. A journalist from the Sydney Morning Herald described that the protest ‘ ... [it] had everything ... except a

50 The ‘Barangaroo Action Group’ is headed by Ian Campbell. 51 The ‘Friends of Barangaroo’ group is co-ordinated by Councillors Marcelle Hoff and John McInerney. 52 The group ‘Australians for Sustainable development is an umbrella group for the Barangaroo Action Group, Friends of Barangaroo, the NSW National Trust, local government groups, industry associations and other community groups. 53 A protest of smaller scale was held on the 1st of February 2011 outside Sydney’s Land and Environment Court (Central News Sydney 2011). Protesters called attention to the issues surrounding Barangaroo’s remediation as discussed in Section 7.3.3.4. 270 decent crowd’ as according to that journalist, only 150 petitioners appeared at the event (Huxley 2010). The following year on the 15th of March 2011, another protest was held, which drew up to 200 campaigners54. The ABC News (2011) described the campaign as a ‘peaceful protest’ as there was ‘no need for [police] reinforcements’. While these protests did generate some media publicity (see for example Huxley 2010; 2011), no direct modifications were made to Barangaroo’s redevelopment as a result of these public protests.

As with the opposition to the social housing sales, resident activism had not generated the same level of interest attributed to the Green Bans in the 1970s (as reflected in the current numbers of campaigners or level of media coverage compared to that of the Green Bans) (see Chapter 4, Section 4.5.1). Protest-based resident activism has had little influence over Barangaroo’s controversies. The leader of the Barangaroo Action Group was also aware of the minimal impacts street based protests had generated:

While we [Barangaroo Action Group] may still hold ... protests from time to time, we expect that working through elected representatives could be the most fruitful avenue in the current climate (I Campbell 2012, pers. comm. 10 August).

The head of the Barangaroo Action Group was aware that local residents (and other concerned citizens from the wider community) had little ability to resist the territorial actions of the government and private corporations. For Ian Campbell (above) different resistance methods, such as working with politicians were needed.

Arguably, the most successful resistance campaign occurred in May of 2011. On the 26th of February 2011, Barry O’Farrell pledged to investigate Barangaroo’s planning process should he be elected as the next Premier of NSW (Moore 2011a). Upon Barry O’Farrell’s election in March 2011, the Australians for Sustainable Development presented parliament with over 10 000 signatures from individuals who were opposed to Barangaroo’s redevelopment (Moore 2011e). The signatories were expressing their opposition to the hotels location that protruded over and into Sydney’s Harbour, the overdevelopment of the site and the removal of the passenger cruise terminal (Australians for Sustainable Development 2011d). Many of

54 This protest was concerned with the changes to the law, which fast tracked Barangaroo South’s development and environmental remediation as described in Section 7.3.3.4. 271 these signatures were collected on-line (Pike 2011). In response to the petition, the newly elected NSW Premier (Barry O’Farrell) ordered an independent inquiry into Barangaroo’s redevelopment process (as discussed in Section 7.2.1) (Nicholls and Moore 2011). Some of the most significant outcomes of the independent review included the recommendation to relocate the casino-hotel from its position over Sydney’s Harbour and for more community consultation to occur (Sussex and Penn 2011). In response to the findings from Barangaroo’s independent review, the Australians for Sustainable Development stated ‘the report contains some big wins for the community, although it could have gone a lot further’ (Australians for Sustainable Development 2011a). In particular, the action group criticised the review for not addressing the ‘financial risks’ of the development as well as transport issues (Australians for Sustainable Development 2011a).

The results from these resistance efforts suggest that the most effective ways of resisting political actions have changed. For example, because large numbers of people attended street based protests during the Green Bans, the resistance effort drew substantial media attention to the cause, which helped prevent redevelopment in The Rocks (Mundey 1981) (as discussed in Chapter 4, Section 4.5.1). Currently, without significant attendance at street based protests (and to therefore attract attention to their cause), methods of resisting development pressures in Sydney’s inner city have shifted. For example, the usage of online-based petitions represented a new way of resisting redevelopment pressures. In addition, resistance efforts became more focussed on collaborating with local politicians as stated by the leader of the Barangaroo Action Group, (I Campbell 2012, pers. comm. 10 August).

This section has documented how the traditional and new communities’ suspicions about Barangaroo’s management process have increased with each territorial action enacted by the government and private corporations. The government has been accused of not being fully committed to the community consultation process. Millers and Dawes Points’ residents have once again questioned the integrity of the government and its ability to manage Barangaroo’s redevelopment in a fair and thorough manner. Residents of the traditional and new communities (and the wider public) have formed resident action groups in an attempt to alter the attributes of Barangaroo’s design that have concerned them. Resident activism, particularly in the form of street based protests, has been generally unsuccessful as dwindling numbers of attendees have not generated the media coverage necessary to draw attention to their cause. While street based protests have worked in the past (such as during the Green 272

Bans in the 1970s), the nature of resident activism has shifted. The leader of the Barangaroo Action Group noted this shift by remarking that collaborating with politicians would more effectively influence Barangaroo’s design. In addition, petitions that were largely circulated on-line represented another aspect of the changing nature of resident activism. However, resisting redevelopment pressures has proven to be very difficult as the Australians for Sustainable Development has noted that the petition had limited success (Australians for Sustainable Development 2011a).

7.6 Conclusion Barangaroo’s redevelopment represents a unique opportunity to redevelop a significant and (financially) valuable precinct in Sydney’s inner city. The government and private corporations have participated in its redevelopment and enacted territorialisation measures to ensure Barangaroo’s redevelopment is planned according to their corporate vision. This chapter examined how Barangaroo South was re-imaged as an act of ‘classification’ (Sack 1986, 28). The state government (led by neoliberal paradigms) propelled this re-imaging (along with and the local council) through strategies which sought to transform a redundant post-industrial precinct into a financial and commercial hub in the Asia-Pacific. Further prompting Barangaroo South’s re-imaging was the projected shortage of quality office supply in inner Sydney. Residents of the traditional and new communities have argued that this financial re-imaging was inappropriate because of its location next to Sydney’s historically and culturally significant ‘urban village’. Regardless of these concerns, it is clear that the government has almost unconditional authority to manage Barangaroo however it sees fit. As a result, the government continued to ‘communica[te]’ Barangaroo South to Millers and Dawes Points’ residents (and the wider community) through promotions (Sack 1986, 28). These promotions included widely publicised design and naming competitions. These competitions conveyed that residential housing (and its communities) were a minor consideration in Barangaroo’s future. In particular, the promotions communicated that creating inner city residential space was not a priority for securing Sydney’s economic future.

Barangaroo South’s transformation into a financial hub has been accelerated by other more heavy-handed territorial methods. For example, the government was perceived to have ‘enforce[ed]’ its control of the precinct by selling it on a 99-year lease (similar to those used during the social housing sell offs) (Sack 1986, 22). This act ensured the government would retain control of the development in the long-term. The government was criticised for its 273 tendering process because residents of the traditional and new communities believed that the process of appointing Lend Lease was not done transparently.

The government continued to exercise its control over the precinct by successfully seeking approval for Modification 2. Of all the amendments to Barangaroo’s concept plans, Modification 4 was proven to be the most controversial. The decision to locate a hotel that protruded over and into Sydney’s Harbour caused outrage amongst Millers and Dawes Points’ residents (and the wider community). Private corporations (whose primary goal was to also financially benefit from Barangaroo South’s redevelopment) also began exercising control over the precinct. A wealthy businessperson (James Packer) was largely involved in a new round of territorialisation strategies as he (and his company) planned for a casino to be constructed at Barangaroo Central (and not Barangaroo South).

Controversies continued when the government fast-tracked its commercial vision for Barangaroo South by using more heavy-handed territorial measures. This included overturning government legislation that would have ensured Barangaroo’s toxic environment would be remediated appropriately. This action was received poorly by Millers and Dawes Points’ residents and was later reprimanded by the authors of the independent Barangaroo review. Lastly, a commercial vision for Barangaroo South was ensured by providing minimal residential housing on the site. In particular, only a few units were slated as ‘affordable housing’ and no units were allocated for social housing residents.

The outcomes of the territorial processes were considered by members of the traditional community to have detrimental effects to the unique character of Millers and Dawes Points. In particular, residents of the traditional community identified that Barangaroo South’s new workers and residents, high-rise towers and the hotel-casino would detract from the significance of Millers and Dawes Points. This loss of significance points towards an exacerbated sense of placelessness experienced by residents of the traditional community.

More recently, plans for redeveloping Barangaroo’s Headland Park has also begun. I demonstrated that the government’s redevelopment of the headland park also reflected Sack’s (1986) three facets of territoriality. First, the headland park was zoned as a public space as an act of ‘classification’ (Sack 1986, 28). This decision was generally well received by residents of the traditional and new communities who believed that Barangaroo’s commercial precinct 274 was offset through this re-zoning. Second, the headland park was also ‘communicat[ed]’ in a way that promised to reconnect visitors to this part of Sydney’s inner city (Sack 1986, 28). The government claimed that the headland park would represent a ‘symbol of country’ (Barangaroo Delivery Authority 2011, 12). In this way, the traditional and new communities could visit the precinct and develop and maintain attachments to this place. However, for members of the traditional community these are not familiar attachments. Finally, the naturalistic headland park aspect of Barangaroo’s design was also perceived to be a method of territorial ‘enforcement’, by some residents of the traditional community (Sack 1986, 22). While Barangaroo’s Concept Plan retained the original concrete tarmac, further modifications replaced the container terminal with a more naturalistic looking headland. This modification resulted in the relocation of the existing cruise passenger terminal at an offsite location. Residents of the traditional community became concerned that the last identifiable remnants of Millers and Dawes Points maritime history were to be removed from the landscape. The removal of the passenger terminal represents yet another facet in a rising sense of placelessness for residents of the traditional community.

The combined territorial actions of the government and private corporations have generated a culture of mistrust amongst residents of the traditional and new communities. Millers and Dawes Points’ residents have taken umbrage at Barangaroo’s redevelopment process and in particular, the lack of transparent decision-making. However, Millers and Dawes Points’ residents were not passive recipients of the changes occurring in their suburbs. Many individuals have actively resisted the territorialisation efforts of the state government and private corporations. Several actions groups mobilised and began protesting against redevelopment pressures. However, the success of these resistance efforts was limited as the protests did not generate significant interest in the cause. Due to the limited success of protests, ways of resisting the redevelopment appear to be changing. The leader of the Barangaroo Action Group claimed that working with politicians would prove to be more fruitful than public protests. To date, the most effective resistance strategy appeared to be the distribution of an on-line based protest that managed to initiate an independent review into Barangaroo’s planning process. While suggestions made by the independent review were proven somewhat beneficial for Millers and Dawes Points’ communities, there is still more planning to be undertaken before Barangaroo is finalised. For example, how Barangaroo Central will be designed remains to be seen. However, it is likely that the planning of Barangaroo Central will also involve territorialisation strategies reminiscent of Sack’s (1986) 275 three facets of territoriality. Given the NSW government’s history of managing the Millers Dawes Points and Barangaroo areas, what is apparent is that the government will use every opportunity to ensure its economic vision for Barangaroo is fulfilled for this strategically important site. It is clear that these territorial actions are difficult to fight and that the traditional community are being sidelined in the wake of economic rationalism and commercialisation.

276

Chapter 8 - CONCLUSIONS

8.1 Introduction This case study analysis of Millers and Dawes Points has revealed the various and overlapping contests over urban space in inner Sydney, Australia. In doing so, existing critiques of urban processes, such as gentrification, have been expanded through engagement with the ideas of ‘territoriality’, ‘sense of place’ and ‘placelessness’. These theories have helped to unpack the various challenges stakeholders have presented to Millers and Dawes Points’ residents. In doing so, the battles occurring over and within the spaces of Millers and Dawes Points have been critically reflected on. Of main concern to this thesis are the changes to these locations, occurring presently and the continuing impacts these changes will bring into the future.

This concluding chapter summarises the arguments presented in this thesis and outlines its contribution to gentrification studies. I continue to explore some of the main themes relevant to this thesis by discussing the strategies stakeholder groups have deployed to gain control over Millers and Dawes Points and the justifications made for such claims over urban space. I also discuss how the challenges faced by residents of Millers and Dawes Points are at a critical juncture where the impacts of change are likely to be irreversible. Where possible, this chapter points to directions for further research. To provide a more holistic representation of events occurring in Millers and Dawes Points, a postscript is included to detail the new contests and events that have occurred subsequent to the analysis period (ending in late 2012) of this thesis.

8.2 Thesis summary Chapter 1 noted that the geographical position of Millers and Dawes Points has made the area historically and culturally significant both in the past and in the contemporary era. Known as Sydney’s own ‘urban village’, Millers and Dawes Points while spatially adjacent to Sydney’s commercially orientated CBD, sit in contrast to its predominately business oriented activities. Millers and Dawes Points’ uniqueness is compounded by its harbour side views and heritage architecture, which are highly valued in Sydney’s inner city.

277

Demonstrated are a range of factors currently affecting Sydney’s social and private housing market and have had influence over the real estate value of Sydney’s (harbour side) locations. These factors have meant that Millers and Dawes Points’ real estate is highly valued and attractive because of its location, history and proximity to the city. Because of the area’s desirable features, various government and private stakeholders have vied to take control of this valuable inner city space. As a result, the area’s social housing stock has been under threat with some properties already sold to the private residential market under 99-year leases. In addition, one of the largest vacant spaces left in Sydney’s inner city, Barangaroo, is being redeveloped and transformed into Sydney’s newest commercial and financial precinct. Also documented were the three main aims that dictated the trajectory of the research.

Chapter 2 offered a review of the literature to provide contextual theoretical detail for the discussions in this thesis. It began with an overview of urban studies gentrification literature that conceptualised the changes occurring within Millers and Dawes Points. How the logic of neoliberalism influenced urban governance as well as the supply of resources was also explored. However, neither theories of gentrification or neoliberalism were described by the literature as suitable for explaining the local geographies of gentrification (van Gent 2013). To rectify this issue, the literature called for middle range theories and frameworks to be developed (Thelen 2002; van Gent 2013). This thesis responds to such calls by developing an empirically tested framework using the concepts of ‘territoriality’, ‘sense of place’ and ‘placelessness’. These middle range theories have been used to extend and build upon accounts of gentrification processes occurring in inner city areas.

Territoriality studies were also noted as under researched in urban investigations (Cresswell 2004; Kärrholm 2007). Socio-political approaches to territoriality (particularly those conducted at the local level) were explained as underpinning the territorial investigations in this thesis. The thesis’ middle range framework was enhanced by using the concept of ‘placelessness’ and a review of the literature on this concept was provided. It was described that this thesis augments existing discussions of territoriality by explaining how territorial strategies enacted within Millers and Dawes Points have affected the residents living there.

Chapter 3 outlined the methodologies used in this thesis. The case study approach, involving the two suburbs of Millers and Dawes Points, was explained as being beneficial in the 278 examination of the multi-layered landscape that exists today. To acquire the views of residents on a large scale, a survey instrument was deployed that attempted to reach as many residents living in Millers and Dawes Points as possible. The results of the survey instrument was used as a platform for forming questions for the in-depth interviewing stage of data generation. The auto-photographic method deployed in this thesis also proved to be instrumental in gaining insights that may have otherwise been left uncovered without the use of photographic stimuli.

As part of the methodology of thesis, ‘triangulation’ proved essential in ensuring that the results from several different sources (both quantitative and qualitative) were crosschecked with each other. Within the methodology chapter I also pointed to how I remained cognisant of my positionality as a researcher (and the power relations inherent in this role) and outlined how I attempted to remain reflexive during the data gathering process. The results produced from my methodologies allowed me to address the thesis aims and form the foundations for discussion in Chapters 5, 6 and 7.

Chapter 4 chartered the development of the narratives of struggles and resistance that have occurred during Millers and Dawes Points’ colonial history. These narratives were essential in providing context to the contests occurring over space in the contemporary landscape. The contextualised social history focussed on how the challenges faced by residents of the area facilitated the formation of a cohesive community, which resulted in the ‘urban village’ characterisation that still exits to this day.

By building on the social histories presented in Chapter 4, gentrification theory was enhanced by conceptualising what I had identified as some of the more contemporary issues occurring in Millers and Dawes Points. In Chapter 5 I shifted my discussion to document how the traditional and new communities have established ties to the landscape around them. These connections were discussed using the concept of a ‘sense of place’. These examinations of community ties were essential in understanding discussions of territoriality in Chapters 6 and 7. Part 1 of Chapter 5 demonstrated that the traditional community’s development of ties to Millers and Dawes Points were built on their longevity and personal histories in the area. . Strengthening the traditional community’s senses of place were the strong social bonds they with formed each other. Members of the traditional community refused to accept ‘blow-ins’,

279 newer social housing residents and members of the new community within their own community.

Part 2 of Chapter 5 explored how residents of the new community constructed their senses of place in different ways to members of the traditional community. Because residents of the new community have had shorter residencies in Millers and Dawes Points (than the traditional community), they have developed their connections to the landscape around them in alternate ways. In addition, I explored how residents of the new community have consumed Millers and Dawes Points’ histories and heritage architecture, which were central to how the traditional community conceptualised their personal connections to place. However, members of the new community have only consumed a selective version of Millers and Dawes Points’ past by focussing on the preservation of industrial heritage and being less concerned with the less appealing aspects such as the plague.

Chapter 6 progressed to analyse how the government and residents of the new community have gained control of space within Millers and Dawes Points by using strategies of territorialisation. By focussing on these acts of territorialisation, Chapters 6 and 7 moved beyond traditional gentrification analyses and presented clearer insights into how the actions of stakeholders affect inner city areas. These actions were analysed with reference to Sack’s (1986) three interdependent relationships of territoriality. Part 1 of Chapter 6 documented how the government, aware of the economic value of Millers and Dawes Points’ space, enacted several acts of territorialisation to gain further control of the precinct. These strategies were effective in threatening the traditional community’s ties to Millers and Dawes Points and continued a process of erosion at their senses of place.

By drawing on the sense of entitlement residents of the new community have towards the territory of Millers and Dawes Points (discussed in Chapter 6, Part 2), discussion shifted to examine how residents of the new community have also participated in territorialising the suburbs. Combined, these territorial strategies have increased the new community’s visibility and ubiquity in the area, which has normalised their presence in the landscape while working against the traditional community members’ senses of place.

In Part 3 of Chapter 6, existing discussions of territoriality were extended by analysing how acts of territorialisation affected local communities. I explained that the territorial actions of 280 the government and members of the new community were perceived by the traditional community as creating irreversible and deleterious changes for the area. For residents of the traditional community these more recent changes had affected their senses of place and caused Millers and Dawes Points to lose its character. This loss of character meant that residents of the traditional community felt increasingly placeless in Millers and Dawes Points. An analysis was also presented of how members of the traditional community resisted the territorial gestures enacted by the government and residents of the new community.

While the territorial actions of the government and members of the new community have been successful in gaining control of space within Millers and Dawes Points, stakeholder groups will continue to capitalise on new opportunities that allow them to gain even further control over the area. An example of such an opportunity is the redevelopment of the 22- hectare brownfield site ‘Barangaroo’. Using Sack’s (1986) framework, Chapter 7 examined the territorial actions of the NSW state government and private commercial corporations in their attempts to push their visions for Barangaroo. The government initially territorialised Barangaroo South by re-imaging it as a centre for economic activity in line with Sack’s (1986, 28) first interdependent relationship of territoriality (‘classification’). To ‘communica[te]’ its vision of Barangaroo South to the wider public, the government used promotional territorial strategies, which included naming and design competitions (1986, 28). The government’s territorial strategies became increasingly heavy handed when it began to ‘enforce’ its preferred commercial vision for Barangaroo South (Sack 1986, 22). The government’s focus on providing housing for the private market also revealed how it was less concerned with supplying a residential precinct accessible to all members of the community regardless of their income. These discussions of how acts of territorialisation have shaped Barangaroo South were given meaning and significance by exploring how the redevelopment of Barangaroo South would affect members of the traditional community.

While Barangaroo’s headland park will be different in character to Barangaroo South, the government has still enacted territorialisation measures to ensure that it was to be designed in a specific way. The headland park has been ‘classifi[ed]’ as a publically accessible space (1986, 22). The government continued to territorialise the headland park through branding that ‘communicat[ed]’ the area in a specific way (Sack 1986, 28). I also analysed how the government ‘enforc[ed]’ a more naturalistic looking headland through Modification 3 (1986, 281

22), which could potentially contribute to an increasing sense of placelessness for residents of the traditional community who have identified with this place as ‘The Hungry Mile’.

8.3 Theoretical contributions to gentrification studies and a way forward While gentrification has clearly occurred in Millers and Dawes Points, this thesis sought to move beyond well-rehearsed gentrification debates to further our understandings of the processes occurring in the area. The logic of neoliberalism was identified as a broad organisational structure shaping beliefs about how home ownership is the preferred option and that housing is the responsibility of the individual. This paradigm is reflected in the housing policies of both the federal and state levels of government in Australia, and this has been manifested in two main ways. First, the state government of NSW has promoted social mixing as a remedy for what has been largely perceived as a problem in Millers and Dawes Points: an emphasis on a lower socio-economic demographic. State led gentrification has facilitated development for members of a new, wealthier group to purchase property in the area. Second, the state has also produced policy facilitating the new build gentrification process where new luxury apartment developments are characteristic of both the Walsh Bay and Barangaroo developments. These new builds contribute to the gentrification not only through a ‘revamped’ landscape, but also through the arrival of more members of the new community. These two state led mechanisms are beneficial to stakeholders including real estate developers (as they make a profit from selling properties) and members of the new community (as it allows them to enter Millers and Dawes Points). However, another process emerged that included the wholesale ‘sell-off’ (through the provision of 99-year leases) of social housing. This indicates that the social mix envisaged for this part of the global city of Sydney is not inclusive of lower-income households.

Through both social mix and new build apartment developments, the state has therefore communicated its vision, that Millers and Dawes Points is an area in need of urban regeneration and revitalisation that is not inclusive of the traditional community. The state government allowed a heavily controlled vision (at the state level) of internationalised free market forces, through the provision of globalised urban space, to shape this intervention.

The state-led gentrification-based policies that facilitated this urban transformation have further stigmatised the traditional community in Millers and Dawes Points. In addition, the

282 alleged benefits of policies enabling of social mix and new build apartment developments was not evidenced in this thesis and based on wider academic literature (as discussed in Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1), the benefits are unlikely to widely observed.

While neoliberalism is relevant to local areas, these broad conceptualisations have been described as too ‘abstract’ to explain the changes occurring in these locations (van Gent 2013, 504). Thus, this thesis responded to calls for middle range frameworks to be developed to better conceptualise the local geographies of gentrification (Thelen 2002; van Gent 2013).

The framework adopted largely rested on Sack’s (1986) socio-political concept of ‘territoriality’, which gave further insights into the contests occurring over space in Millers and Dawes Points. In particular, it allowed for a contextualised examination of the steps and strategies used by stakeholders to gain control and manipulate space. Because the NSW state government and members of the new community possess greater resources, the territorial actions ranged from more traditional methods (such as the construction of ‘privatopias’) to the more elaborate steps used by the government (such as the amending of state planning laws in the case of the Barangaroo development). Explored in the following section (7.5) in further detail is how these groups have varied motivations that compel them to claim territory they believe they are entitled to.

Existing urban studies were expanded by giving more personal understandings of the experiences of lower socio-economic populations in gentrifying areas. This occurred by broadening traditional humanist territoriality studies with the concepts of a ‘sense of place’ and ‘placelessness’ to the middle range framework. The empirical evidence gathered for this research indicated that the development of the traditional and new communities’ senses of place has led to very different constructions and appreciations of the same place. By recognising these senses of place, an understanding of how acts of territorialisation could impact on these communities were given. Due to the territorial actions of the NSW state government and members of the new community, the traditional community’s belonging to Millers and Dawes Points were being eroded away along with their senses of place. These continued acts of territorialisation contributed to the traditional community’s rising sense of placelessness. Also covered was how members of the traditional community responded to the changes in their local area with territorial actions of their own rather than remain passive.

283

This framework is not location specific and has resonance for other case study locations. By extrapolating the work conducted in this thesis to other urban villages (particularly those with historical and cultural significance to the nations they are located in), it would be possible to gain a more holistic view of why changes occur in these areas and provide more nuanced understandings of the effects gentrification and territoriality has on local communities. While this thesis has obvious place specifity, and the territorial strategies deployed by the NSW state government might be unique in character, the process is not. Future studies may reveal differing acts of territorialisation around the globe with their place specific local laws and policies playing unique but nonetheless similar roles. Longitudinal studies of territoriality might also expose how territorial strategies evolve over time. Prediction of effective counter strategies may also become apparent (such as conducting street based protests compared to on-line signed petitions by the community). By incorporating the idea of a ‘sense of place’ into future research, more personal insights of the individuals who become displaced by territorial strategies are also possible.

8.4 Control over urban space Throughout this thesis, I have documented how the battles occurring over Millers and Dawes Points’ space have played out territorially with stakeholders asserting their claim over this valuable inner city space. Stakeholders chose territorial strategies that would most likely achieve their visions for the area. With every territorial strategy used, the government, private corporations and residents of the new community have gained increasing control over space. These territorial strategies did not occur by chance. They were deliberate courses of action aimed to garner control over urban space.

A key element to the success of these territorial strategies was the timeframe in which they were undertaken. Unlike residents of the traditional community, the government, commercial corporations and residents of the new community have more time to accomplish their visions for the area. While the residential longevity of the traditional community is limited, the government and commercial corporations in particular, do not necessarily require immediate returns from their territorial actions. With a combination of several (and often overlapping) territorial actions occurring over the long term, the government and commercial corporations have ensured that their visions for the area would be achieved.

284

The territorial strategies described in this thesis have been successful because numerous groups have simultaneously worked to control Millers and Dawes Points’ space. Each stakeholder group (excluding the residents of the traditional community) has sought to transform Millers and Dawes Points into a landscape that does not include the existing lower socio-economic demographic. With stakeholder groups performing acts of territorialisation concurrently, the territorial strategies have become mutually reinforcing. For example, during the redevelopment of Barangaroo, the government and several private corporations (such as Lend Lease and Crown Ltd) have worked in conjunction with each other to propel their commercial visions for the area. By working together towards a common goal, these groups have added strength to their territorial strategies and increased their chances for success. In doing so, these stakeholder groups have also propelled the rate of change occurring in the area.

Stakeholder groups have taken advantage of the opportunity to gain from this harbour side location and have worked towards a common goal of transforming this urban space. The territorial strategies deployed have been so successful that the government and private corporations appeared to have almost unconditional authority to use Millers and Dawes Points as they see fit. For example, a small selection of some of the territorial methods examined in this thesis included manipulating state environmental planning laws, withholding plans about the future of social housing properties, neglecting social housing maintenance and selective place naming. These territorial strategies have gained enough momentum that opposing the effects of these actions has proved to be almost impossible. As discussed in Chapters 6 and 7 (Sections 6.4 and 7.5 respectively) residents of the traditional community have had few resources to resist the changes occurring in Millers and Dawes Points. Resisting further changes will become increasingly difficult as the effects of territorial strategies gain further momentum and become more successful (this is further explored in the postscript for this thesis). While it is clear that the government, private corporations and residents of the new community possess the greater ability to control space in Millers and Dawes Points, each group provides different reasons that justify their claims to urban space. These claims are further explored in the following section.

8.5 Claims to urban space In this section, I describe how the government, commercial corporations and residents of the traditional and new communities have had different motivations compelling them to claim 285 this part of Sydney’s inner city. In some cases, these motivations have led them to believe that they were more ‘entitled’ to control space within Millers and Dawes Points over other stakeholders.

Consecutive governments have had a long history of using Millers and Dawes Points in ways that it claimed would benefit the people of Sydney. An early example was the resumption of properties in the area to make way for the construction of the Sydney Harbour Bridge to improve transport in Sydney (Fitzgerald and Keating 2009). Later, the government claimed that the funds raised from the sales of social housing would benefit a greater number of social housing residents than those currently living in Millers and Dawes Points. More recently, the government asserted that its decision to make Barangaroo predominately commercial would also significantly benefit the people of Sydney (and the wider nation). In each of these actions, the government has claimed that its territorial strategies have been enacted for the benefit of the nation. However, these strategies have often occurred at the expense of the local traditional community and, at times, the new community living in Millers and Dawes Points.

Commercial corporations1 were eager to capitalise from redeveloping Barangaroo. While the commercial corporations currently involved in redeveloping Barangaroo have not historically had any associations with the area, commercial activity more generally had a significant role in Millers and Dawes Points’ past. During the maritime period (c. 1820 to 1950), many companies were successful in profiting from their activities on the wharves. Today, new companies have also been motivated by the prospect of gaining significant revenue from redeveloping a valuable harbour side location in inner Sydney. These new commercial activities are also set to become fundamental to Sydney’s economy. Although Barangaroo’s design has not yet been finalised, it is likely that these commercial corporations will continue to enact acts of territorialisation that enhance their potential for higher economic returns. For as long there is the potential to financially benefit from Millers and Dawes Points, territorial strategies that aim to gain control and execute specific and profitable visions for the area will continue.

1 The main companies include Lend Lease and Crown Ltd (James Packer’s company). 286

Residents of the traditional and new communities believed they were entitled to reside within Millers and Dawes Points. As described in Chapter 5 (Section 5.3.1.1), the majority of the new community’s members believe that they had a more legitimate claim to Millers and Dawes Points because of their higher socio-economic status. They also argued that their presence improved the aesthetics of the area and balanced its socio-economic demographics. In contrast, members of the traditional community believed that they had a greater claim to space within Millers and Dawes Points based on their historical links to the area. In addition, many residents of the traditional community believed that retaining social housing in inner Sydney is essential to keep a lower socio-economic demographic in the inner city.

It is beyond the scope and intention of this thesis to determine which stakeholder groups have a more legitimate claim to space within Millers and Dawes Points. How Millers and Dawes Points’ space should be managed in the future is no less easy to establish. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that this inner city location has been highly contested with many stakeholder groups seeking to manipulate this space in accordance with their visions of the area. While these visions will likely remain at odds with members of the traditional community, it is the role of the government to ensure that the changes occurring in Millers and Dawes Points follow correct legal protocols. However, the legality of the government’s own actions in the past has been called into question (see Chapter 7, Section 7.3.3.4). It appears that Millers and Dawes Points have reached a critical moment in time where the events unfolding today will create irreversible changes to the landscape and in particular, the communities residing there. The significance of the changes occurring at this moment in time is further explored in the following section.

8.6 A critical moment in time Millers and Dawes Points are positioned within a highly sought after harbour side location in the global city of Sydney. While the economic value of the area is evident, Millers and Dawes Points also possess a historical and cultural significance unlike other inner Sydney harbour side locations. Due to these unique set of attributes, there are more groups capitalising on Millers and Dawes Points’ space at this moment in time than ever before. As a result, changes are occurring at a faster pace, which have and will continue to alter the landscape. These changes are pertinent for residents of the traditional community because the future of Millers and Dawes Points as a residential precinct for lower socio-economic groups is one of diminished security. Without social housing members of the traditional 287 community will not be able to reside in the area and maintain their senses of place. Of particular concern is that the construction of social housing in other areas of Sydney’s inner city has not been forecasted to replace the social housing stock lost in Millers and Dawes Points. As discussed in Chapter 6 (Section 6.3.2), the danger of not incorporating social housing within Sydney’s inner city is that it could become exclusive, available only to those who can pay the premium price to live there. As a result, social housing residents will likely be pushed to Sydney’s outer suburbs and inner Sydney locations will lose their demographic mix.

As development in inner Sydney continues and space becomes increasingly rare, the battles occurring over space in Millers and Dawes Points are not likely to subside. The government, commercial corporations and residents of the new community will continue to find new ways of territorialising the area as the opportunities present themselves. And these changes will continue to alter the character of Millers and Dawes Points.

. . .

8.7 Postscript The events described in this section occurred outside of the analysis period (ending in late 2012) to this thesis. These events have been included as a postscript because they have the potential to shape the future of Millers and Dawes Points and in particular, the presence of the traditional community in this location. This section details some new developments that have occurred, which concern the sales of social housing in Millers and Dawes Points and the Barangaroo development.

In October 2012, Millers and Dawes Points’ social housing stock was placed at further risk following an announcement by the NSW Finance Minister, Greg Pearce, who stated that around 250 social housing properties in Millers and Dawes Points were being evaluated for potential sale (Tovey 2012). Of great concern to residents of the traditional community was the possibility that they could be evicted from their homes if their properties were marked for sale. The NSW Finance Minister stated that these newly evicted residents would be relocated elsewhere within Sydney’s inner city (Tovey 2012). Residents once again mobilised and a

288 community meeting was held in December 2012 to determine a suitable course of action (Greenwich 2012). By February 2013, the Independent Member of the New South Wales Parliament, Alex Greenwich, presented the NSW Finance Minister with a petition that represented the community’s opposition to further sales of social housing properties. The NSW Finance Minister replied to the petition with a letter that restated the government’s rationale for selling Millers and Dawes Points’ social housing (Pearce 2013). The letter reiterated that the cost of renovating these heritage properties was too high (Pearce 2013).

In February 2013, members of the traditional community responded to the NSW Finance Minister’s announcement and enacted a new round of resistance efforts. Yellow ribbons and A4 sized posters were placed outside many social housing properties within Millers and Dawes Points2 (see Figure 8.1). According to the chairperson of the Millers Point Resident Action Group, the posters and ribbons have been placed to ‘show politicians, public servants and developers as well as the general public the strong opposition in the area to the sale of any more houses in Millers Point’ (Millers Point Resident Action Group 2013). Residents were asked to encourage their neighbours to display the ribbons and posters outside their homes (Millers Point Resident Action Group 2013).

2 The posters and ribbons were found outside many homes along Hickson Road, Dalgety Road, Kent Street, Argyle Place and Lower Fort Street. These streets all contain social housing. 289

Figure 8.1: Examples of yellow signs and ribbons placed outside social housing residences along High Street, Millers Point3. Source (top and bottom): 28-112mm zoom/digital/exp.auto/HK 2013

The posters and ribbons were a visible marker used to indicate the territory of the traditional community and represent their opposition to the sell offs. With increasing numbers of homes displaying the posters and ribbons, a sense of the traditional community’s solidarity in opposing the sell offs was observed. The posters and ribbons were also representative of the traditional community’s limited capacity to influence the course of the social housing sales. For example, the visual protests did not have direct control over preventing any further sales of social housing. Instead, this new round of resistance was hoped to alert the wider community about the sales, which has worked to a certain extent. The visual protest generated the attention of local media (see for example Allen and Morton 2012; Tovey 2012; Feneley and Nicholls 2013; Gorman 2013) and a television news program4, which broadcasted a seven minute report of the sales of social housing in Millers and Dawes Points

3 Text on yellow signs read: ‘Millers Point, Dawes Point, The Rocks and Walsh Bay Resident Action Group. Save Our Community!’. Other homes have similar signs that read: ‘Save Our Homes!’ instead of ‘Save Our Community!’. 4 ‘A Current Affair’ was the news program that documented the sell offs. 290 to the nation5 (A Current Affair 2013). While responses from the wider community about the sell offs are difficult to accurately gauge, the news program invited visitors to leave their views about the sales of social housing in the comments section of its website6. The vast majority of responses were in support of the sales. For example, one viewer stated: ‘I just cannot believe the sense of entitlement these uneducated, low class leeches [traditional community] have. THEY should move to the suburbs’ (Account User ‘Silverrose’, 28 May 2013, original emphasis). While I was not able to obtain responses from residents of the traditional community I had previously interviewed, the ‘Miller’s Point – New South Wales’ facebook© page did provide some insights about how the traditional community responded to the report. Overall, members of the ‘Miller’s Point – New South Wales’ facebook© page were appalled by the quality of the report that was broadcasted to the nation. One group member commented: ‘[A Current Affair] shouldnt [sic] show these programs without knowing the history of the [people] who formed millers point ... makes me so angry’ (‘Miller’s Point – New South Wales’ facebook© group member, 23 May 2013). Another member similarly stated: ‘Facts mean very little to the media, and our history means even less ...’ (‘Miller’s Point – New South Wales’ facebook© group member, 26 May 2013). To these members of the ‘Miller’s Point – New South Wales’ facebook© page, the histories of the traditional community were vital to why they should continue residing in the area. If the responses to the television news report by the public are any indication, attempts of gaining wider community support using visual territorial markers appeared to have failed. It is arguable that while the traditional community’s resistance to the sales did reach a wider audience, public support may not have been gained.

Since the NSW Finance Minister’s announcement, the traditional community have searched for other means to resist the sales of social housing. For example, there have been hints of conducting another Green Ban by gaining the support of trade unions (Hackney 2012). The results of this thesis suggest that it could be argued that conducting another Green Ban might not be as effective as the one that occurred in the 1970s because of the difference in the work required on the buildings. That is, in the 1970s a Green Ban was conducted to block large- scale demolitions of buildings in The Rocks (Bennett 1993). As the social housing properties in Millers and Dawes Points are currently heritage listed, demolitions can no longer occur.

5 The report also highlighted how social housing properties were also being sold in other Australian cities (Brisbane and Melbourne), but was focussed on Millers and Dawes Points. 6 Comments made in response to the report of the social housing sales may be viewed at: http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/article/8663090/luxury-houso-sell-off. 291

Any work carried out by trade unions would involve renovations (not demolition) by different contractors who may not belong to unions. Without such visible destruction of the properties the new Green Ban might not ignite the same level of public interest of the 1970s.

In searching for other ways to oppose the sales of social housing, in March 2013, I was also contacted by a resident of the traditional community I had previously interviewed. The resident wished for me to read and comment on the report the NSW government will provide on completion of its evaluation of social housing properties. Here, residents of the traditional community were attempting to gain academic support to strengthen their campaign. However, it is unlikely that my input would have any significant impact on government’s new round of territorial strategies that have increased in intensity and scale. The resident informed me that s/he would be sending me the NSW government’s evaluation of social housing when it is released in late 2013.

As documented in Chapter 6 (Section 6.2.2.2), Housing NSW previously hinted at selling social housing properties and evicting its tenants, but quickly retracted its statement promising never to evict any tenants in the future. Evidently, this guarantee has not been kept and the sales of social housing have gained momentum because the NSW government’s newest territorialisation strategy was more forceful than its previous ones. The NSW Finance Minister’s new announcement clearly indicated the government’s dedication to territorialising Millers and Dawes Points and re-classifying it as an elite housing precinct. Now more than ever, the future of the traditional community in Millers and Dawes Points appears less secure.

At time of writing, plans for Barangaroo’s design have not yet been finalised yet building has commenced. A dispute7 between Lend Lease and the NSW government stalled development until an agreement was reached in early 2015 (Ruehl and Harley 2015). This agreement allowed Lend Lease to proceed with its vision to build a hotel-casino within Barangaroo by lodging Modification 8 to the Barangaroo Delivery Authority. Modification 8 pushed the boundaries of the original concept design with the hotel-casino doubling in density to 605 911m² (from 330 000m²) and its height increasing to 275m (from 170m) (Bleby 2015; Hasham 2015). In addition, 48 percent of the hotel-casino floor space is set to be luxury

7 The dispute was concerned with profit sharing margins, which cost the NSW government millions of dollars (Ruehl and Harley 2015). Construction could not proceed until settlement discussions concluded. 292 apartments (Davies 2015). Also significant is the Modification request for the hotel-casino moved from the pier on Sydney’s harbour to space reserved for public recreation in Barangaroo Central (Davies 2015). As a result, the public foreshore park would need to be shifted to accommodate the construction (Nicholls 2015). Currently, this does not appear to have proceeded.

It is clear that commercial interests are still playing a major role in Barangaroo’s future. The traditional and new communities (and the wider public) have previously indicated their dismay at the prospect of inclusion of a casino in the Barangaroo precinct (as discussed in Chapter 7, Section 7.3.3.3). Furthermore, the encroachment of a hotel-casino on the section of Barangaroo reserved for the public also caused anxiety amongst Millers and Dawes Points’ residents (as discussed in Chapter 7, Section 7.3.3.3). New plans for the hotel-casino indicated that commercial corporations have not considered the public view as the hotel- casino was still located within a part of Barangaroo earmarked for the public. In addition, the hotel-casino’s height (which has been an issue amongst the public for Barangaroo South’s other towers, see Chapter 7, Section 7.3.3.3) once again demonstrated commercial corporations’ indifference to the requests of the public.

In this new round of territorialisation efforts, commercial interests appear resolute in shaping Barangaroo in accordance with their visions for the area. Lend Lease are determined to push their commercial vision into Barangaroo Central that designs for the hotel-casino are nearly finalised without final governmental building approvals (Bleby 2015). The NSW Government has appointed an independent Planning Assessment Panel to determine if Modification 8 may receive approval (Nicholls 2015). This Panel is expected to reach a decision on whether the hotel-casino may be built by the end of 2015. What is certain is that the casino entrepreneur, James Packer, the NSW state government and other commercial corporations, will continue to push their commercial vision into Barangaroo.

293

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A Current Affair. 2013, Luxury Houso Sell-Off, accessed 28 May 2013, http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/article/8663090/luxury-houso-sell-off.

ABC News. 2011, Barangaroo Backlash Spills Over, online video, accessed 5 June 2012, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX9Y9YBWHlQ&feature=plcp.

ACT Government. 2012, Grants of Leases, accessed 5 September 2014, http://www.actpla.act.gov.au/topics/property_purchases/leases_licenses/grants_of_leases.

Adams, P. C., Hoelscher, S. D. & Till, K. E. 2001, Place in Context: Rethinking humanist geographies. In Textures of Place: Exploring humanist geographies, eds. P. C. Adams, S. D. Hoelscher & K. E. Till, pp. xiii-xxxiii. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Adebanwi, W. 2007, Territoriality and the Discourse of Ethnic Groups’ Clashes. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 213-243.

Agnew, J. 2011, Space and Place. In The Sage Handbook of Geographical Knowledge, eds. J. A. Agnew & D. N. Livingstone, pp. 316-330. London: Sage.

Agnew, J., Paasi, A. & Sack, R. 2000, Classics in Human Geography Revisited. Progress in Human Geography, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 91-99.

Agnew, J. A. 1987, Place and Politics: The geographical mediation of state and society. Boston: Allen & Unwin.

Allan, G. A. 1979, A Sociology of Friendship and Kinship. London: Allen & Unwin.

Allen, L. & Morton, R. 2012, 'Libs Eye Riches in Social Housing'. The Australian, 25 October, p. 8, accessed 25 October 2012 from Factiva.

Alston, M. & Bowles, W. 2003, Research for Social Workers: An introduction to methods. Second Edition. St Leonards: Allen and Unwin.

Altman, I. 1975, The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, personal space, territory, crowding. California: Brooks/Cole Publishing.

Anderson, J. & O'Dowd, L. 1999, Borders, Border Regions and Territoriality: Contradictory meanings, changing significance. Regional Studies, vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 593-604.

Housing NSW. Annable, R. 2004, Millers Point: A brief history, Sydney. accessed 7 April 2009, www.housing.nsw.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/5B4EA0B8-9908-42F2-B4CA- 2C6AF3884E84/0/CMGMillersPointVol3b.pdf.

Ardrey, R. 1967, The Territorial Imperative: A personal inquiry into the animal origins of property and nations. London: Collins.

294

Argyrous, G. 2009, Evidence for Policy & Decision: Making a practical guide. Sydney: University of NSW Press.

Arthurson, K. 2004, Social Mix and Disadvantaged Communities: Policy, practice, and the evidence base. Urban Policy and Research, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 101-106.

Ashton, P. & Waterson, D. 2000, Sydney Takes Shape: A history in maps. Brisbane: Hema Maps.

Atkinson, R. 2000a, The Hidden Costs of Gentrification: Displacement in central London. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 307-326.

Atkinson, R. 2000b, Measuring Gentrification and Displacement in Greater London. Urban Studies, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 149-165.

Atkinson, R. 2002, Does Gentrification Help Or Harm Urban Neighbourhoods?: An assessment of the evidence-base in the context of new urban agenda. Bristol: ESRC Centre for Neighbourhood Research.

Atkinson, R. 2004, The Evidence on the Impact of Gentrification: New lessons for the urban renaissance? International Journal of Housing Policy, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 107-131.

Atlas.id. 2014, City of Sydney, accessed 24 September 2014, http://atlas.id.com.au/sydney/maps/rental- stress#MapNo=10064&SexKey=4&datatype=1&themtype=1&topicAlias=rental- stress&year=2011.

Audit Office of New South Wales. 2013, Making the Best use of Public Housing, accessed 20 June 2014, https://www.audit.nsw.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/280/01_Public_Housing_Full_Report.pdf.a spx?Embed=Y.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2011a, Dawes Point: Basic community profile, Cat. no. 2001.1, Australian Bureau of Statistics, accessed 11 November 2011, http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/CensusOutput/copsub.NSF/All%20docs%20by%20catNo/ 2011~Community%20Profile~SSC10698/$File/BCP_SSC10698.zip?OpenElement.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2011b, Millers Point: Basic community profile, Cat. no. 2001.1, Australian Bureau of Statistics, accessed 11 November 2011, http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/CensusOutput/copsub.NSF/All%20docs%20by%20catNo/ 2011~Community%20Profile~SSC11539/$File/BCP_SSC11539.zip?OpenElement.

Australian Design Review. 2011, Barangaroo Independent Review Released, accessed 10 August 2011, http://www.australiandesignreview.com/news/2306-barangaroo-independent- review-released.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2011, Public Rental Housing 2009–10. Cat. no. HOU 234. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

295

Australian Property Monitors. 2012a, Property Research Report for Dawes Point 2000, accessed 5 April 2013, http://apm.domain.com.au/Research/?AddressLine=dawes%20point&LocationType=Suburb &State=NSW&SuburbId=13412.

Australian Property Monitors. 2012b, Property Research Report for Millers Point 2000, accessed 5 April 2013, http://apm.domain.com.au/Research/?AddressLine=millers%20point&LocationType=Suburb &State=NSW&SuburbId=28802.

Australians for Sustainable Development. 2011a, Barangaroo Independent Reviewers’ Report, accessed 13 September 2011, http://afsd.org.au/barangaroo-independent- reviewers%E2%80%99-report/.

Australians for Sustainable Development. 2011b, Barangaroo Inquiry: First test of Liberal resolve on planning reform, media release, accessed 30 March 2011, http://afsd.org.au/barangaroo-inquiry-first-test-of-liberal-resolve-on-planning-reform/.

Australians for Sustainable Development. 2011c, Our Purpose, accessed 12 November 2011, http://afsd.org.au/our_purpose/.

Australians for Sustainable Development. 2011d, Review of Barangaroo Announced: Community to get its say, accessed 13 June 2011, http://afsd.org.au/review-of-barangaroo- announced-community-to-get-its-say/.

Babbie, E. 2013, The Practice of Social Research. Thirteenth Edition. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Badamj2000. 2012, Same Same Forum: Barangaroo, accessed 10 August 2012, http://m.samesame.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=28553.

Baeten, G. 2004, Inner City Misery: Real and imagined. City vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 235-241.

Bailey, N. & Robertson, D. 1997, Housing Renewal, Urban Policy and Gentrification. Urban Studies, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 561-578.

Baker, A. R. H. 1997, “The Dead Don't Answer Questionnaires”: Researching and writing historical geography. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 231-243.

Baker, S. J. 1982, A Dictionary of Australian Slang. South Yarra: Currey O'Neil.

Bakker, C. B. & Bakker-Rabdau, M. K. 1973, No Trespassing! Explorations in human territoriality. San Francisco: Chandler & Sharp Publishers.

Bangarra Dance Theatre. 2012, About, accessed 5 March 2013, http://www.bangarra.com.au/vision.

Barangaroo Delivery Authority. 2011, Barangaroo, accessed 16 December 2011, http://www.barangaroo.com/media/63217/final%20response%20to%20the%20premier%201 90112.pdf.

296

Barangaroo Delivery Authority. 2012a, Barangaroo Delivery Authority, accessed 29 March 2013, http://www.barangaroo.com/discover-barangaroo/barangaroo-delivery-authority.aspx.

Barangaroo Delivery Authority. 2012b, The Barangaroo Name, accessed 20 July 2012, http://www.barangaroo.com/discover-barangaroo/history/the-barangaroo-name.aspx.

Barangaroo Delivery Authority. 2012c, Frequently Asked Questions, accessed 21 July 2012, http://www.barangaroo.com/discover-barangaroo/faqs.aspx.

Barangaroo Delivery Authority. 2012d, History, accessed 20 July 2012, http://www.barangaroo.com/discover-barangaroo/history.aspx.

Barangaroo Delivery Authority. 2012e, Welcome to Barangaroo Central, accessed 17 June 2012, http://www.barangaroo.com/discover-barangaroo/barangaroo-central.aspx.

Barangaroo Delivery Authority. 2012f, Welcome to Headland Park, accessed 21 June 2012, http://www.barangaroo.com/discover-barangaroo/headland-park.aspx.

Barbour, R. 2013, Introducing Qualitative Research: A student's guide. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Baron, W. 1854, Woolcott & Clarke's Map of the City of Sydney: With the environs of Balmain and Glebe, Chippendale Redfern, Paddington &c, Sydney. Woolcott & Clarke.

Bartram, R. 2003, Geography and the Interpretation of Visual Imagery. In Key Methods in Geography, eds. N. J. Clifford & G. Valentine, pp. 149-160. London: Sage.

Baxter, J. & Eyles, J. 1997, Evaluating Qualitative Research in Social Geography: Establishing ‘rigour’ in interview analysis. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, vol. 22, pp. 505-525.

Beaumont, J. & Nicholls, W. 2007, Between Relationality and Territoriality: Investigating the geographies of justice movements in The Netherlands and the United States. Environment and Planning A, vol. 39, pp. 2554-2574.

Beauregard, R. 1986, Chaos and Complexity of Gentrification. In Gentrification of the City, eds. N. Smith & P. Williams, pp. 35-55. Australia: Allen and Unwin.

Beer, A., Baker, E., Wood, G. & Raftery, P. 2011, Housing Policy, Housing Assistance and the Wellbeing Dividend: Developing an evidence base for post-GFC economies. Housing Studies, vol. 26, no. 7-8, pp. 1171-1192.

Beer, A., Kearins, B. & Pieters, H. 2007, Housing Affordability and Planning in Australia: The challenge of policy under neo-liberalism. Housing Studies, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 11-24.

Bell, C. & Newby, H. 1978, Community, Communication, Class and Community Action: The social sources of the new urban politics. In Social Areas in Cities: Processes, Patterns and Problems, eds. D. Herbert & R. Johnston, pp. 283-302. New York: Wiley.

297

Belle Property. 2013, Unit 3c/161 Kent Street, accessed 26 March 2013, http://www.belleproperty.com/29P0407.

Bennett, K. 2002, Participant Observation. In Doing Cultural Geography ed. P. Shurmer- Smith, pp. 139-150. London: Sage.

Bennett, T. 1993, History on The Rocks. In Australian Cultural Studies: A reader, eds. J. Frow & M. Morris, pp. 222-240. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Berry, M. 1999, Unravelling the "Australian Housing Solution": The post-war years. Housing, Theory and Society, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 106-123.

Berry, M. 2003, Why is it Important to Boost the Supply of Affordable Housing in Australia- And how can we do it? Urban Policy and Research, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 413-435.

Besser, L. & Murray, E. 2009, 'Taxpayers Face $98m Clean-Up Bill'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 24 July, p. 1, accessed 14 June 2011 from Factiva.

Birkeland, I. 2008, Cultural Sustainability: Industrialism, placelessness and the re-animation of place. Ethics, Place & Environment, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 283-297.

Bita, N. 1989, '79-Year Old Tenant Fears Eviction In Govt Sell-Off'. The Sydney Morning Herald, p. 3, accessed 7 April 2008 from Factiva.

Blackshaw, T. 2010, Key Concepts in Community Studies. London: Sage.

Bleby, M. 2015, 'Crown design is elegant, says architect'. The Australian Financial Review, 28 May 2015, p. 44, accessed from Factiva.

Blokland, T. 2003, Urban Bonds: Social relationships in an inner city neighbourhood. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Blomley, N. 2004, Unsettling the City: Urban land and the politics of property. New York: Routledge.

Bogdan, R. 1975, Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: A phenomenological approach to the social sciences. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Bolt, G. & Van Kempen, R. 2011, Successful Mixing? Effects of urban restructuring policies in Dutch neighbourhoods. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, vol. 102, no. 3, pp. 361-368.

Bounds, M. 2004, Urban Social Theory: City, self and society. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Bounds, M. & Morris, A. 2006, Second Wave Gentrification in Inner-City Sydney. Cities, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 99-108.

Bradley, W. 1788, Sydney Cove, Port Jackson, State Library of New South Wales (Mitchell Library).

298

Brenner, N. 1999, Beyond State-Centrism? Space, territoriality, and geographical scale in globalization studies. Theory and Society, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 39-78.

Brenner, N. & Theodore, N. 2002, Cities and the Geographies of “Actually Existing Neoliberalism”. Antipode, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 349-379.

Bridge, G. 1994, Gentrification, Class and Residence: A reappraisal. Environment and Planning D, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 31-51.

Bridge, G. 2001, Bourdieu, Rational Action and the Time-Space Strategy of Gentrification. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, vol. 26, pp. 205-216.

Brown-Saracino, J. 2009, A Neighborhood that Never Changes: Gentrification, social preservation, and the search for authenticity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Brown, G., Lawrence, T. B. & Robinson, S. L. 2005, Territoriality in Organizations. The Academy of Management Review, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 577-594.

Brown, G. & Raymond, C. 2007, The Relationship Between Place Attachment and Landscape Values: Toward mapping place attachment. Applied Geography, vol. 27, pp. 89- 111.

Brown, M. 1992, 'Walsh Bay Plan Under Threat'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 8 September, p. 8, accessed 8 September 2009 from Factiva.

Browne, R. 2012, 'Barangaroo Will Have Big Impact But No Footprint'. Sydney Morning Herald, 3 June, p. 4, accessed 3 June 2012 from Factiva.

Bryman, A. 2008, Social Research Methods. Third Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bryman, A. 2012, Social Research Methods. Fourth Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Butler, T. 2003, Living in the Bubble: Gentrification and its 'Others' in North London. Urban Studies, vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 2469-2486.

Cameron, S. 2003, Gentrification, Housing Redifferentiation and Urban Regeneration: 'Going for growth' in Newcastle upon Tyne. Urban Studies, vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 2367-2382.

Campbell, I. 2012. .

Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J. & Pedersen, O. K. 2013, Coding In-depth Semistructured Interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 294-320.

Campion, V. 2010, 'Why West is Best Blacktown or Fairfield the Place to Live Your Dream'. The Daily Telegraph, 11 November, p. 7, accessed 11 November 2010 from Factiva.

Campion, V. 2011, 'Baranga Boon for Property Harbour Unit Prices Rise '. The Daily Telegraph, 30 July, p. 9, accessed 30 July 2011 from Factiva.

299

Caporn, W. 1836, Map of the Town of Sydney 1836, Eric Milton Nicholls Collection, City of Sydney Council Archives.

Carr, K. 2010, Barangaroo Rally Turns Battle for the 'People's Place', accessed 29 June 2010, http://sydney-central.whereilive.com.au/news/story/barangaroo-rally-turns-battle-for- the-peoples-place/.

Castree, N. 2003, Place: Connections and boundaries in an interdependent world. In Key Concepts in Geography, eds. G. Valentine, S. Holloway & S. Rice, pp. 165-185. London: Sage.

Central Magazine. 2011, Millers Point Auctions Raise Millions for Public Housing, accessed 17 August 2011, http://sydney-central.whereilive.com.au/news/story/auctions-give-coffers-a- new-lease-of-life/.

Central News Sydney. 2011, Barangaroo Protest Outside Land and Environment Court, accessed 1 February 2011, http://sydney- central.whereilive.com.au/news/story/contamination-feared/.

Charmaz, K. 2006, Constructing Grounded Theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage Publications.

Chester, L. 2010, Actually Existing Markets: The case of neoliberal Australia. Journal of Economic Issues, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 313-324.

Christensen, G. 2015, A Danish Tale of Why Social Mix Is So Difficult to Increase. Housing Studies, pp. 1-20.

Christie, M. E. 2006, Kitchenspace: Gendered territory in central Mexico. Gender, Place & Culture, vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 653-661.

City of Sydney Council. 2011, Barangaroo Fact Sheet 6: Affordable Housing, accessed 1 July 2011, http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/development/UrbanRenewalProjects/documents/4098_ FA1_BarangarooA4_FactSheet_web_Part6.pdf.

City of Sydney Council. 2012, Transforming George Street, accessed 15 June 2012, http://sydneyyoursay.com.au/george-street.

City of Sydney Council. 2013, Our Responsibilities, accessed 28 March 2013, http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/council/our-responsibilities.

City Planning and Building Dept & Council of the City of Sydney. 1976, West Rocks. Sydney: Council of the City of Sydney.

Clark-Ibanez, M. 2004, Framing the Social World With Photo-Elicitation Interviews. American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 47, no. 12, pp. 1507-1527.

Clendinnen, I. 2005, Dancing With Strangers: Europeans and Australians at First Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

300

Cloke, P., Philo, C. & Sadler, D. 1991, Approaching Human Geography: An introduction to contemporary theoretical debates. London: Chapman.

Coles. 2012, History, accessed 3 March 2012, http://www.coles.com.au/About- Coles/Company/History.aspx.

Collier, J. & Collier, M. 1986, Visual Anthropology: Photography as a research method. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Council of Social Service of New South Wales. 2011, NCOSS Analysis of the 2011-12 NSW State Budget, accessed 8 April 2011, http://www.ncoss.org.au/resources/20110907-NCOSS- Budget-Briefing-2011_12.pdf.

Crang, M. & Thrift, N. J. 2000, Introduction. In Thinking Space, eds. M. Crang & N. J. Thrift, pp. 1-30. London: Routledge.

Creagh, S. 2008a, 'Harbour Majesty for $1.5m: A 99-year bargain'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 21 November, p. 2, accessed 19 May 2009 from Factiva.

Creagh, S. 2008b, 'Public Housing to Get a New Lease of Life'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 3 October, p. 4, accessed 19 May 2009 from Factiva.

Creagh, S. 2008c, 'Sale Seen as Solution to Living With Pests'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 21 June, p. 10, accessed 19 May 2009 from Factiva.

Cresswell, T. 1996, In Place/Out of Place: Geography, ideology, and transgression. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Cresswell, T. 1999, Place. In Introducing Human Geographies, eds. P. Cloke, M. Goodwin & P. Crang, pp. 226-234. London: Arnold.

Cresswell, T. 2004, Place: A short introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Crilley, D. 1993, Architecture as Advertising: Constructing the image of redevelopment. In Selling Places: The city as cultural capital, past and present, eds. C. Philo & G. Kearns, pp. 231-252. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Crown Limited. 2012, Crown to Work Exclusively with Lend Lease to develop a World Class Six Star Hotel Resort at Barangaroo South, media release, accessed 5 August 2012, http://afr.com/rw/Wires/Stories/2012-08-02/ASXAnnouncements/CWN_01319862.pdf.

Daniels, S. 1992, Place and the Geographical Imagination. Geographical Association, vol. 77, no. 4, pp. 310-322.

Darug Tribal Aboriginal Corporation. 2009, Darug Place Names, accessed 30 July 2009, http://darugweavers.tripod.com/ourblackandwhitefamily/id37.html.

Davidson, M. 2007, Gentrification as Global Habitat: A process of class formation or corporate creation? Transactions Of The Institute Of British Geographers, vol. 32, pp. 490- 506.

301

Davidson, M. 2010, Love Thy Neighbour? Social mixing in London’s gentrification frontiers. Environment and Planning A vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 524-544.

Davidson, M. & Lees, L. 2005, New-Build ‘Gentrification’and London’s Riverside Renaissance. Environment and Planning A, vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 1165-1190.

Davies, A. 2015, 'Apartments back on table for Barangaroo hotel project'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 25 May 2015, p. 8, accessed from Factiva.

Davies, P. 2007, Millers Point and Walsh Bay Heritage Review: Final Report, accessed 23 May 2008, http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/development/documents/Heritage/HeritageStudies/Mill ersPtWalshBayStudy/MillersPt_FinalMarch2007_Sec1-3.pdf.

Dawkins, R. 1976, The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press. de Vaus, D. 2002, Surveys in Social Research. Fifth Edition. Crows Nest: Routledge.

Dean, K. 2005, Spaces and Territorialities on the Sino–Burmese Boundary: China, Burma and the Kachin. Political Geography, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 808-830.

DeBres, K. & Sowers, J. 2009, The Emergence of Standardized, Idealized, and Placeless Landscapes in Midwestern Main Street Postcards. The Professional Geographer, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 216-230.

Delaney, D. 2009, Territory and Territoriality. In International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, eds. R. Kitchin & N. Thrift, 196-208. Oxford: Elsevier.

Demographia. 2011, 7th Annual Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey: 2011, accessed 4 June 2011, http://www.demographia.com/dhi.pdf.

Department of Families Housing Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. 2012, Commonwealth State Housing Agreement, accessed 12 July 2012, http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/our-responsibilities/housing-support/publications- articles/housing/commonwealth-state-housing-agreement.

Department of Human Services. 2010, Annual Report - 2009/10, accessed 20 April 2011, http://www.humanservices.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/237201/DHS_Annual_Re port_2009_-_10.pdf.

Department of Human Services. 2013, Bulk billing: Frequently asked questions, accessed 15 February 2013, http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/provider/medicare/bulk-billing.jsp.

Department of Planning and Infrastructure. 2012, About Us, accessed 3 March 2012, http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/about-us.

Dey, I. 1993, Qualitative Data Analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. London: Routledge.

Dodson, J. 2007, Government Discourse and Housing. Hampshire: Ashgate.

302

Doucet, B. 2009, Living through gentrification: subjective experiences of local, non- gentrifying residents in Leith, Edinburgh. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, vol. 24, pp. 299-315.

Dunn, K. 2005, Interviewing. In Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography, Second Edition, ed. I. Hay, pp. 79-105. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

East Darling Harbour Design Competition Jury. 2006, East Darling Harbour Design Competition Stage 2 Jury Report, accessed 17 July 2012, http://www.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/CITY_OF_SYDNEY_BarangarooReviewSubmissi on_Appendices_D-H.PDF.

Ekinsmyth, C. 2002, Feminist Methodology. In Doing Cultural Geography, ed. P. Shurmer- Smith, pp. 177-187. London: Sage.

Elden, S. 2010, Thinking Territory Politically. Political Geography, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 238- 241.

Elder, C. 2007, Being Australian: Narratives of national identity. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Elliott, T. 2007, '$80 a Week For This...'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 28 June, p. 48, accessed 19 May 2009 from Factiva.

Elwood, S. A. & Martin, D. G. 2000, 'Placing' Interviews: Location and scales of power in qualitative research. Professional Geographer, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 649-657.

Engels, B. 1999, Property Ownership, Tenure and Displacement: In search of the process of gentrification. Environment and Planning A, vol. 31, pp. 1473-1495.

England, K. 2006, Producing Feminist Geographies: Theory, methodologies and research strategies. In Approaches to Human Geography, eds. S. Aitkin & G. Valentine, pp. 286-297. London: Sage.

Entrikin, J. N. 1991, The Betweenness of Place: Towards a geography of modernity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Eyles, J. 1985, Senses of Place. Warrington: Silverbrook Press.

Faludi, A. 2013, Territorial Cohesion, Territorialism, Territoriality, and Soft Planning: A critical review. Environment and Planning A, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 1302-1317.

Faulkner, M. 2009, Petition to Change Back East Darling Harbour’s Name Back to The Hungry Mile, accessed 12 February 2009, http://www.facebook.com/s.php?q=%5C%22walsh%20bay%5S%22&sid=ee4926112.

Featherstone, M. 1993, Global and Local Cultures. In Mapping the Futures: Local cultures, global change, eds. J. Bird, B. Curtis, T. Putnam, G. Robertson & L. Tickner, pp. 169-187. London: Routledge.

303

Feneley, R. & Nicholls, S. 2013, 'The Bland and the Beautiful: Battle for a public treasure'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 11 May, p. 4, accessed 11 May 2013 from Factiva.

Fitzgerald, S. 2007, Introduction to Sydney’s Streets: A guide to Sydney’s street names, accessed 31 July 2009, http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/AboutSydney/documents/history/Streets/hs_streets_280 305.xls.

Fitzgerald, S. & Keating, C. 1991, Millers Point: The urban village. Sydney: Hale and Iremonger.

Fitzgerald, S. & Keating, C. 2009, Millers Point: The urban village. Second Edition. Sydney: Halstead Press.

Foote, K. & Azaryahu, M. 2009, Sense of Place. In International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, eds. R. Kitchin & N. Thrift, pp. 96-100. Oxford: Elsevier.

Forrest, R. & Murie, A. 1988, Selling the Welfare State: The privatisation of public housing. London: Routledge.

Fratelli Fresh. 2012, Fratelli Fresh, accessed 22 February 2012, http://www.fratellifresh.com.au.

Freeman, L. 2006, There Goes the 'Hood: Views of gentrification from the ground up. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Freeman, L. & Braconi, F. 2002, Gentrification and Displacement. The Urban Prospect, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1-4.

Freeman, L. & Braconi, F. 2004, Gentrification and Displacement: New York City in the 1990s. Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 39-52.

Friedmann, J. & Wolff, G. 1982, World City Formation: An agenda for research and action. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 309-344.

Galloway, M. 2005, East Darling Harbour, Millers Point: History and development, accessed 29 April 2009, http://www.barangaroo.com/downloads/Appendix_A_Heritage_Impact_Statement_PartD.pdf .

Gaming, D. 2013, 'D-Day for Sparring Sydney Casino Bids'. The Australian, 4 July, p. 19, accessed 4 July 2013 from Factiva.

Gans, H. J. 1965, The Urban Villagers: Group and class in the life of Italian-Americans. New York: Free Press.

Geographical Names Board. 2007, Barangaroo, accessed 8 July 2009, http://www.gnb.nsw.gov.au/name_search/extract?id=MnqwZxUlKW.

304

Geographical Names Board. 2008, The Hungry Mile, accessed 17 July 2009, http://www.gnb.nsw.gov.au/name_search/extract?id=MnIOvqrXIt.

Geographical Names Board. 2009, About Us, accessed 8 July 2009, http://www.gnb.nsw.gov.au/about_gnb.

Geographical Names Board. 2012, Geographical Names Register Extract: Walsh Bay, accessed 15 June 2012, http://www.gnb.nsw.gov.au/name_search/extract?id=SXqwBKsEJP.

Geoscience Australia. 2014, Land Tenure, accessed 5 September 2014, http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/geographic-information/land-tenure.

Gibson, J. 2008, 'Iemma Rebuffs Gehl Criticisms, Flags New Ferry Hub'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 17 April, p. 4, accessed 17 April 2008 from Factiva.

Gill, S. 1995, Globalisation, Market Civilisation, and Disciplinary Neoliberalism. Millennium - Journal of International Studies, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 399-423.

Gilmour, T. & Milligan, V. 2012, Housing Affordability, Affordable Housing and the Policy Agenda. In Australia's Unintended Cities: The impact of housing on urban development, ed. R. Tomlinson, pp. 51-68. Melbourne: CSIRO Publishing.

Glass, R. 1964, Introduction: Aspects of change. London: MacGibbon and Kee.

Globe Vista. 2011, Sydney Harbour Bridge, accessed 14 April 2011, http://www.sydneyvista.com/Sydney-Harbour-Bridge.html.

Goodsir, D. 2004, 'For Lease: Historic public housing with sparkling harbour views'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 13 November, p. 7, accessed 19 May 2009 from Factiva.

Google Earth 7.0. 2013a, Barangaroo, 33o51'35.82"S, 151o12'07.51"E, elevation 6M.

Google Earth 7.0. 2013b, The Hungry Mile, 33o51'40.15"S, 151o12'12.91"E, elevation 23M.

Google Earth 7.0. 2013c, Millers and Dawes Points' Dwelling Types, 33o51'30.15"S, 151o12'12.91"E.

Google Earth 7.0. 2013d, Millers Point, Dawes Point and The Rocks, 33o51'30.15"S, 151o12'12.91"E, elevation 23M.

Google Earth 7.0. 2013e, Walsh Bay, 33o51'24.58"S, 151o12'19.37"E elevation 6M.

Gorman, J. 2013, 'Many More Public Housing Tenants may Face Eviction from Other Inner City Suburbs'. The Daily Telegraph, 20 March, p. 8, accessed 20 March 2013 from Factiva.

Goss, J. 2004, Geography of Consumption I. Progress in Human Geography, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 369-380.

Gottmann, J. 1973, The Significance of Territory. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.

305

Goudy, W. J. 1990, Community Attachment in a Rural Region. Rural Sociology, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 178-198.

Grace, H. 1987, A New Journal of the Plague Year. Cultural Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 75-91.

Graham, B., Ashworth, G. & Tunbridge, J. 2000, A Geography of Heritage: Power, culture and economy. London: Arnold.

Graham, C. 2006, White Australia Embraces Aboriginal Culture (When it Suits), accessed 5 April 2009, http://www.crikey.com.au/2006/10/19/white-australia-embraces-aboriginal- culture-when-it-suits/.

Gray, A. 2003, Research Practice for Cultural Studies: Ethnographic methods and lived cultures. London: Sage.

Greenwich, A. 2012, Millers Point Public Tenants’ Meeting, accessed 10 December 2012, http://alexgreenwich.com/2012/12/millers-point-public-tenants-meeting/.

Grier, G. & Grier, E. 1980, Urban Displacement: A reconnaissance. In Back to the City: Issues in neighbourhood renovation, eds. S. Laska & D. Spain, pp. 252-268. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Groenhart, L. 2013, Reflecting on a Decade of Australian Social Housing Policy: Changes in supply and geography, 2001–2011. Geographical Research, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 387-397.

Hackney, P. 2012, Green Bans Plan for Millers Point, accessed 2 January 2013, http://www.altmedia.net.au/green-bans-plan-for-millers-point/67771.

Hackworth, J. & Smith, N. 2001, The Changing State of Gentrification. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, vol. 92, no. 4, pp. 464-477.

Hammel, D. 2009, Gentrification. In International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, eds. R. Kitchin & N. Thrift, 360-367. Oxford: Elsevier.

Hamnett, C. 1991, The Blind Men and the Elephant: The Explanation of Gentrification. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 173-189.

Hamnett, C. 2003a, Gentrification and the Middle Class Remaking of Inner London 1961- 2001. Urban Studies, vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 2401-2426.

Hamnett, C. 2003b, Unequal City: London in the global arena. London: Routledge.

Hamnett, C. & Williams, P. 1979, Gentrification in London 1961–1971: An empirical and theoretical analysis of social change. Birmingham: University of Birmingham, Centre for Urban and Regional Studies.

Hardwick, S. 2009, Case Study Approach. In International Encyclopedia of Human Geography eds. R. Kitchin & N. Thrift, pp. 441-445. Oxford: Elsevier.

306

Harner, J. & Kinder, F. 2011, Placelessness in a Deregulated City: University village in Colorado Springs. Urban Geography, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 730-755.

Harper, D. 2002, Talking About Pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 13-26.

Harriott, S., Matthews, L. & Grainger, P. 1998, Social Housing: An introduction. Harlow: Longman.

Hartshorne, R. 1958, The Concept of Geography as a Science of Space, from Kant and Humboldt to Hettner. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 97-108.

Harvey, D. 1989a, The Condition of Postmodernity: An enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Oxford: Blackwell.

Harvey, D. 1989b, The Urban Experience. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Harvey, D. 1990, Between Space and Time: Reflections on the geographical imagination. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 418-434.

Harvey, D. 1993, From Space to Place and Back Again: Reflections of the condition of postmodernity In Mapping the Futures: Local cultures, global change, eds. J. Bird, B. Curtis, T. Putnam, G. Robertson & L. Tickner, pp. 3-29. London: Routledge.

Harvey, D. 2005, Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hasham, N. 2015, 'You can't stop change, says Barangaroo tower's designer'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 29 May, p. 2, accessed 15 June 2015 from Factiva.

Haskell, J. 1997, Sydney Architecture. Sydney: UNSW Press.

Hay, R. 1998, Sense of Place in Developmental Context. Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 18, pp. 5-29.

Hayden, D. 1995, The Power of Place. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Herbert, D. T. & Thomas, C. J. 1982, Urban Geography: A first approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Hill Thalis Architecture, Urban Projects, Paul Berkemeier & Jane Irwin Landscape Architecture. 2006, East Darling Harbour, accessed 30 July 2012, http://www.hillthalis.com.au/files/EDH%20Report.pdf.

Hill Thalis Architecure & Urban Projects. 2006, Barangaroo (Formerly East Darling Harbour), accessed 30 July 2012, http://www.hillthalis.com.au/index.php?id=39.

Hof, K. & Sen, A. 2005, Homeownership, Community Interactions, and Segregation. The American Economic Review, vol. 95, no. 4, pp. 1167-1189.

307

Hoggart, K., Lees, L. & Davies, A. 2002, Researching Human Geography. London: Arnold Publishers.

Holocomb, B. & Beauregard, R. 1981, Revitalizing Cities. Washington DC: Association of American Geographers Resource Paper.

Horin, A. 2012, 'Great Roll of China no Solution'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 9 June, p. 18, accessed 9 June 2012 from Factiva.

Hornby, A. 2005, Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary. Seventh Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Horvath, R. & Engels, B. 1985, The Residential Restructuring of Inner Sydney. In Living In Cities: Urbanism and society in metropolitan Australia, eds. I. Burnley & J. Forrest, pp. 143- 159. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

Housing NSW. 2007a, Agent Appointed for Millers Point Leases, accessed 16 May 2008, http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/About+Us/News+and+Newsletters/News+Articles/News+20 07/Agent+Appointed+for+Millers+Point+Leases.htm.

Housing NSW. Housing NSW. 2007b, Millers Point Oral History Project: Summary Report, accessed 4 March 2009, www.housing.nsw.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/B4A06A4B-5976-4824- 90E3.../0/MillersPointOralHistoryProjectSummaryReport.pdf.

Housing NSW. 2007c, Millers Point: A brief history, Sydney. accessed 7 April 2009, www.housing.nsw.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/DACBDD25-5410-4027-9441- F35316230CE3/0/CMGMillersPointVol1.pdf

Housing NSW. 2008a, Millers Point Long-Term Leasing Handbook. Ashfield: Housing NSW.

Housing NSW. 2008b, New South Wales Government: A new direction in affordable housing for the inner west, accessed 5 May 2008, http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/25EE48B6-4B7F-4862-BFBF- D1E929F22DF7/0/Innerwest_final_web.pdf.

Housing NSW. 2010a, History of Public Housing in NSW Overview, accessed 3 November 2011, http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/About+Us/History+of+Public+Housing+in+NSW/.

Housing NSW. 2010b, Lease Auctions in Millers Point Raise Over $3.1 Million for New Public Housing, media release, accessed 1 July 2010, www.housing.nsw.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/.../MillersPointLeaseAuctions.pdf.

Housing NSW. 2010c, Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan Overview, accessed 20 January 2011, http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/Changes+to+Social+Housing/Nation+Building+Economic+ Stimulus+Plan/.

308

Housing NSW. 2010d, Our Clients, accessed 18 July 2010, http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/About+Us/Reports+Plans+and+Papers/Annual+Reports/200 7-2008/Preliminaries.htm.

Housing NSW. 2011a, Millers Point Auctions Raise Over $2 Million for New Public Housing, media release, accessed 5 August 2011, http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/05F9A451-9236-4ABB-8332- C95AFE1F2D51/0/MillersPointAuctions.pdf.

Housing NSW. 2011b, Services Offered, accessed 11 February 2011, http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/About+Us/What+We+Do.htm.

Housing NSW. 2012, Housing Pathways, accessed 7 October 2012, http://www.housingpathways.nsw.gov.au/Pathways_Internet/Templates/Overview.aspx?NR MODE=Published&NRNODEGUID=%7bC2E31342-3429-439E-B863- 6D9FF49AF42B%7d&NRORIGINALURL=%2fWays%2bwe%2bcan%2bHelp%2fSocial% 2bHousing%2fSocial%2bHousing%2bEligibility%2band%2bAllocations%2bPolicy%2bSup plement%2ehtm&NRCACHEHINT=NoModifyGuest#efphuhn.

Housing NSW. 2013a, NSW Housing Register Overview, accessed 8 April 2013, http://www.housingpathways.nsw.gov.au/Ways+we+can+Help/NSW+Housing+Register/.

Housing NSW. 2013b, Who Are Very Low to Moderate Income Earners?, accessed 26 April 2013, http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/Centre%2BFor%2BAffordable%2BHousing/About%2BAffo rdable%2BHousing/Who%2Bare%2Bvery%2Blow%2Bto%2Bmoderate%2Bincome%2Bear ners.htm.

Howitt, R. 2001, Rethinking Resource Management: Justice, sustainability and Indigenous peoples. London: Routledge.

Hubbard, P. 2005, Space/Place. In Cultural Geography: A critical dictionary of key concepts, eds. D. Atkinson, P. Jackson, D. Sibley & N. Washbourne, pp. 41-48. London: I.B. Tauris.

Hulse, K., Phillips, R. & Burke, T. 2007, Improving Access to Social Housing: Paradigms, principles and reforms. Melbourne: AHURI Final Report No.97, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

Huxley, J. 2010, 'Small Protest with Loud Voice Demands Waterfront Plan be Sliced'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 13 September, p. 6, accessed 13 September 2010 from Factiva.

Independent Commission Against Corruption. 2010a, The Exercise of Discretion Under Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005, accessed 18 July 2012, http://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/component/docman/doc_download/3685-the-exercise-of- discretion-under-part-3a-of-the-environmental-planning-and-assessment-act-1979-and-the- state-environmental-planning-policy-major-development-2005-december-2010.

309

Independent Commission Against Corruption. 2010b, ICAC Recommends Reforms to Part 3A of the NSW Planning Legislation, media release, accessed 11 January 2011, http://www.icac.nsw.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/article/3802.

Ismail, N., Egoz, S., Cushman, G., Aziz, N. & Yunos, M. 2013, “I Beg Your Pardon, I Never Promised You a Rose Garden” An Interpretation of Meaning and Aesthetic in Urban Residential Landscape. Scottish Journal of Arts, Social Sciences and Scientific Studies, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 145-161.

Jackson, J. B. 1994, A Sense of Place, A Sense of Time. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Jackson, P. 1995, Manufacturing Meanings: Culture, capital and urban change. In The Urban Context: Ethnicity, social networks and situational analysis, eds. A. Rogers & S. Vertovec, pp. 165-188. Oxford: Berg.

Jacobs, K., Berry, M. & Dalton, T. 2013, ‘A Dead and Broken System?’: ‘Insider’ views of the future role of Australian public housing. International Journal of Housing Policy, vol. 13, 2, pp. 183-201.

Jager, M. 1986, Class Definition and the Esthetics of Gentrification: Victoriana in Melbourne. In Gentrification of the City, eds. N. Smith & P. Williams, pp. 78-91. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.

James, P. E. & Jones, C. F. 1954, American Geography: Inventory and prospect. Syracuse: University Press.

James Wallace Pty. Ltd. 1964, The Redevelopment of The Rocks Area. Sydney: James Wallace Pty. Ltd.

Jivèn, G. & Larkham, P. J. 2003, Sense of Place, Authenticity and Character: A commentary. Journal of Urban Design, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 67-81.

Johnston, R. 2001, Out of the ‘Moribund Backwater’: Territory and territoriality in political geography. Political Geography, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 677-693.

Johnston, R. J. 2000, Secondary Data Analysis. In Dictionary of Human Geography, eds. R. J. Johnston, D. Gregory, G. Pratt & M. Watts, pp. 730. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Jones, M. 1983, The Australian Welfare State: Growth, crisis and change. Sydney: George Allen & Unwin.

Jones, P. & Evans, J. 2012, Rescue Geography: Place making, affect and regeneration. Urban Studies, vol. 49, no. 11, pp. 2315-2330.

Jorgensen, B. S. & Stedman, R. C. 2011, Measuring the Spatial Component of Sense of Place: A methodology for research on the spatial dynamics of psychological experiences of places. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 38, pp. 795-813.

310

Kärrholm, M. 2007, The Materiality of Territorial Production a Conceptual Discussion of Territoriality, Materiality, and the Everyday life of Public Space. Space and Culture, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 437-453.

Karskens, G. 1997, The Rocks: Life in early Sydney. Carlton: Melbourne University Press.

Karskens, G. 2003, Tourists and Pilgrims: (Re)visiting The Rocks. Journal of Australian Studies, vol. 27, no. 79, pp. 29-38.

Kasarda, J. D. & Janowitz, M. 1974, Community Attachment in Mass Society. American Sociological Review, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 328-339.

Kearns, R. A. 2010, Seeing With Clarity: Undertaking observational research. In Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography, Third Edition, ed. I. Hay, pp. 241-258. South Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press.

Keneally, T. 2009, Australians: Origins to eureka. Volume 1. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Klauser, F. R. 2012, Thinking Through Territoriality: Introducing Claude Raffestin to Anglophone sociospatial theory. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, vol. 30, pp. 106-120.

Kudryavtsev, A., Stedman, R. C. & Krasny, M. E. 2012, Sense of Place in Environmental Education. Environmental Education Research, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 229-250.

Kuo, F. E. & Sullivan, W. C. 2001, Environment and Crime in the Inner City: Does vegetation reduce crime? Environment and Behavior, vol. 33, pp. 343-367.

Kusher, C. 2012, 'Why is Sydney's Housing Market so Expensive?'. Property Observer, 3 December 2012, p. 2, accessed 8 April 2013 from Factiva.

Kyle, G. & Chick, G. 2007, The Social Construction of a Sense of Place. Leisure Sciences, vol. 29, pp. 209-225.

Kythreotis, A. P. 2012, Progress in Global Climate Change Politics? Reasserting national state territoriality in a ‘post-political’ world. Progress in Human Geography, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 457-474.

Langham Hotels International Limited. 2012, The Langham, Sydney, accessed 20 October 2012, http://sydney.langhamhotels.com.au/index.html.

Larner, W. 2000, Neo-liberalism: Policy, ideology, governmentality. Studies in Political Economy, vol. 63, pp. 5-25.

Larner, W. 2009, Neoliberalism. In International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, eds. R. Kitchin & N. Thrift, 374-378. Oxford: Elsevier.

Larson, S., De Freitas, D. M. & Hicks, C. C. 2013, Sense of Place as a Determinant of People's Attitudes Towards the Environment: Implications for natural resources management

311 and planning in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 117, pp. 226-234.

Lees, L. 1994a, Gentrification in London and New York: An Atlantic gap? Housing Studies, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 199-217.

Lees, L. 1994b, Rethinking Gentrification: Beyond the position of economics and culture. Progress in Human Geography vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 137-150.

Lees, L. 1996, In the Pursuit of Difference: Representations of gentrification. Environment and Planning A, vol. 28, pp. 453-470.

Lees, L. 2000, A Reappraisal of Gentrification: Towards a ‘geography of gentrification’. Progress in human geography, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 389-408.

Lees, L. 2003a, ‘Policy (Re)turns: Gentrification and urban policy-urban policy and gentrification research. Environment and Planning A vol. 35, pp. 571-574.

Lees, L. 2003b, ‘Visions of “urban renaissance”: the Urban Task Force report and the Urban White Paper. In Urban Renaissance?: New labour, community and urban policy, eds. R. Imrie & M. Raco, pp. 61-81. Bristol: The Policy Press.

Lees, L. 2008, Gentrification and Social Mixing: Towards an inclusive urban renaissance? Urban Studies, vol. 45, no. 12, pp. 2449-2470.

Lees, L. 2014, The Urban Injustices of New Labour's “New Urban Renewal”: The Case of the Aylesbury Estate in London. Antipode, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 921-947.

Lees, L. & Ley, D. 2008, Introduction to Special Issue on Gentrification and Public Policy. Urban Studies, vol. 45, no. 12, pp. 2379-2384.

Lees, L., Slater, T. & Wyly, E. 2008, Gentrification. London: Routledge.

LeGates, R. & Hartman, C. 1986, The Anatomy of Displacement in the US. In Gentrification of the City, eds. N. Smith & P. Williams, pp. 178-200. London: Allen and Unwin.

LeGates, R. T. & Hartman, C. 1981, Displacement. The Clearinghouse Review, vol. 15, pp. 207-249.

Lend Lease. 2011, Submission to Barangaroo Review, accessed 16 July 2011, http://www.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/LEND_LEASE_BarangarooReviewSubmission_11 0621.pdf.

Lend Lease. 2012a, Design Excellence, accessed 20 June 2012, http://www.internationaltowerssydney.com/Masterplan/default.aspx.

Lend Lease. 2012b, International Towers, accessed 7 June 2012, http://www.internationaltowerssydney.com.

Lend Lease. 2012c, Lend Lease, accessed 2 February 2012, www.lendlease.com.

312

Lend Lease. 2012d, Lend Lease Announces Exclusivity Deal for Barangaroo South Hotel, media release, accessed 5 August 2012, http://afr.com/rw/Wires/Stories/2012-08- 02/ASXAnnouncements/LLC_01319860.pdf.

Lend Lease. 2012e, Waterfront Living, accessed 11 May 2012, http://www.internationaltowerssydney.com/Waterfront-Living/default.aspx.

Lewis, J. & Towers, B. 1969, Naked Ape or Homo Sapiens? London: Garnstone Press.

Lewis, R. 2009, Housing the Seafaring Nation, accessed 2 February 2009, http://crossart.com.au/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=35.

Ley, D. 1980, Liberal Ideology and the Post-Industrial City. Canadian Geographer, vol. 25, pp. 238-258.

Ley, D. 1981, Inner-City Revitalization in Canada: A Vancouver case study. Canadian Geographer, vol. 25, pp. 124-148.

Ley, D. 1986, Alternative Explanations for Inner-City Gentrification: A Canadian assessment. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol. 76, pp. 521-535.

Ley, D. 1987, The Rent-Gap Revisited. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol. 77, pp. 465-468.

Ley, D. 1994, Gentrification and the Politics of the New Middle Class. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, vol. 12, pp. 52-74.

Ley, D. 1996, The New Middle Class and the Remaking of the Central City. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ley, D. 2003, Artists, Aestheticisation and the Field of Gentrification. Urban Studies, vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 2527-2544.

Liamputtong, P. 2013, Qualitative research methods. Fourth Edition. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Liu, E. 2013, The Wander Years: Estate renewal, temporary relocation and place(less)ness in Bonnyrigg, NSW. Sydney: State of Australian Cities Conference.

Liu, Q. A., Ryan, V., Aurbach, H. & Besser, T. 1998, The influence of Local Church Participation on Rural Community Attachment. Rural Sociology, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 432-450.

Lorenz, K. 1966, On Aggression. London: Methuen.

Low, S. & Altman, I. 1992, Place Attachment: A conceptual enquiry. In Place Attachment, eds. I. Altman & S. Low, pp. 1-12. New York: Plenum Press.

Luukkonen, J. & Moilanen, H. 2012, Territoriality in the Strategies and Practices of the Territorial Cohesion Policy of the European Union: Territorial challenges in implementing “soft planning”. European Planning Studies, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 481-500.

313

MacLeod, N. E. 2006, The Placeless Festival: Identity and place in the post-modern festival. In Festivals, Tourism and Social Change: Remaking worlds, eds. D. Picard & M. Robinson, pp. 222-237. Frankfurt Lodge: Channel View Publications.

Maguire, M. 2008, 'House Prices in State of Despair'. Sunday Telegraph, 28 September, p. 14, accessed 28 February 2011 from Factiva.

Malmberg, T. 1980, Human Territoriality: Survey of behavioural territories in man with preliminary analysis and discussion of meaning. New York: Mouton.

Malpas, J. 2008, New Media, Cultural Heritage and the Sense of Place: Mapping the conceptual ground. International Journal of Heritage Studies, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 197-209.

Manage Meant Pty Ltd. 2009, Walsh Bay: Precinct news December. Sydney.

Manage Meant Pty Ltd. 2010, Parbury Ruins, accessed 4 February 2010, http://www.walshbaysydney.com.au/parbury-ruins.html.

Manage Meant Pty Ltd. 2012, Walsh Bay: Precinct news April. Sydney.

Manning, P. & Hardman, M. 1975, Green Bans: The story of an Australian phenomenon. East Melbourne: Australian Conservation Foundation.

Mantha, A. 2009, Territoriality, Social Boundaries and Ancestor Veneration in the Central Andes of Peru. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 158-176.

Marcuse, P. 1985, Gentrification, Abandonment, and Displacement: Connections, causes, and policy responses in New York City. Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law, vol. 28, pp. 195-240.

Marcuse, P. 1986, Abandonment, Gentrification and Displacement: The linkages in New York City. In Gentrification of the City, eds. N. Smith & P. Williams, pp. 153-177. London: Allen and Unwin.

Maritime Union of Australia. 2008, The Hungry Mile, accessed 17 July 2009, http://www.mua.org.au/media/uploads/TheHungryMilebook.pdf.

Maritime Union of Australia. 2012, Members Centre, accessed 2 April 2013, http://www.mua.org.au/our-union/members-centre/.

Marom, N. & Carmon, N. 2015, Affordable Housing Plans in London and New York: Between Marketplace and Social Mix. Housing Studies, pp. 1-23.

Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. 2011, Designing Qualitative Research. Fifth Edition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Massey, D. 1993, Questions of Locality. Geography, vol. 78, no. 2, pp. 142-149.

Massey, D. 1994, Space, Place and Gender. Cambridge: Polity.

314

McGuirk, P. M. 2005, Neoliberalist Planning? Re-thinking and re-casting Sydney's metropolitan planning. Geographical Research, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 59-70.

McGuirk, P. M. & O'Neill, P. 2010, Using Questionnaires in Qualitative Human Geography. In Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography, Third Edition, ed. I. Hay, pp. 147- 162. South Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press.

McKenny, L. 2012, 'Walsh Bay Stays Put'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 1 August 2012, p. 5, accessed 1 August 2012 from Factiva.

McKenzie, E. 1994, Privatopia: Homeowner associations and the rise of residential private government. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Merton, R. K. 1957, Social Theory and Social Structure. USA: The Free Press.

Miles, M. B. 1979, Qualitative Data as an Attractive Nuisance: The problem of analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 590-601.

Miles, M. B. & Huberman, M. 1994, Qualitative Data Analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Millers Point Resident Action Group. 2013, Minutes of the Millers Point Resident Action Group, accessed 20 March 2013, http://www.millerspointrag.org.au/wp- content/uploads/2012/04/RAG-Minutes15.htm.

Milligan, V. & Pinnegar, S. 2010, The Comeback of National Housing Policy: First reflections. International Journal of Housing Policy, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 325-344.

Milligan, V. & Tiernan, A. 2011, No Home for Housing: The situation of the Commonwealth's housing policy advisory function. Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 70, no. 4, pp. 391-407.

Mills, C. 1988, Life on the Upslope: The postmodern landscape of gentrification. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, vol. 6, pp. 169-189.

Mills, C. 1993, Myths and Meanings of Gentrification. In Place, Culture, Representation, eds. J. Duncan & D. Ley, pp. 149-170. London: Routledge.

Minister for Housing. 2008, First Round of Millers Point Properties up for Auction, media release, accessed 2 October 2008, http://www.pennysharpe.com/files/081002%20HOUSING%20millers%20point%20auction.p df.

Mirvac. 2010, Awards, accessed 17 July 2011, http://www.mirvac.com/awards.

Mirvac. 2013, Company Profile, accessed 2 February 2013, http://www.mirvac.com/company-profile.

Monmonier, M. S. 1991, How to Lie With Maps. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

315

Moore, G., Croxford, B., Adams, M., Refaee, M., Cox, T. & Sharples, S. 2008, The Photo- Survey Research Method: Capturing life in the city. Visual Studies, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 50-62.

Moore, M. 2011a, 'Go-Ahead for Barangaroo'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 3 March, p. 1, accessed 3 March 2011 from Factiva.

Moore, M. 2011b, 'Judge Lashes Kelly Over Barangaroo Law'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 11 March, p. 2, accessed 11 March 2011 from Factiva.

Moore, M. 2011c, 'Kelly Defied Advice on Barangaroo Exemption'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 4 March, p. 1, accessed 4 March 2011 from Factiva.

Moore, M. 2011d, 'Minister Ran Down Clock for Approvals'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 10 March, p. 1, accessed 10 March 2011 from Factiva.

Moore, M. 2011e, 'Pressure Group Signs up for Barangaroo Change'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 2 May 2011, p. 3, accessed 2 May 2011 from Factiva.

Moore, M. 2012a, 'Not so Fast with that Dubai-Style Tower, Says Mayor'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 28 February, p. 1, accessed 29 February 2012 from Factiva.

Moore, M. 2012b, 'O'Farrell Applauds Packer Proposal for a Second Casino'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 27 February, p. 1, accessed 27 February 2012 from Factiva.

Moore, M. & Kruger, C. 2012, 'Packer Move Could Force Barangaroo Rejig'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 3 August, p. 1, accessed 3 August 2012 from Factiva.

Moore, M., Nicholls, S. & Wade, M. 2012, 'Casino's Size is no Big Deal, says Crown'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 1 March, p. 3, accessed 3 March 2012 from Factiva.

Morgan, D. 1987, Global Restructuring and its Impact on Land Use Planning in Sydney. Urban Policy and Research, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 167-173.

Morgan, G. 1991, History on The Rocks. In Packaging the Past? Public histories, eds. J. Rickard & P. Spearritt, pp. 78-87. Carlton: Melbourne University Press.

Morris, A. 2010, Policies Related to Homelessness and Affordable Housing in Australia. In Human Rights and Social Policy: A comparative analysis of values and citizenship in OECD countries, ed. A. Nevile, pp. 154-173. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Morris, D. 1967, The Naked Ape: A zoologist's study of the human animal. London: Cape.

Morton, S. M., Bandara, D. K., Robinson, E. M. & Carr, P. E. 2012, In the 21st Century, what is an acceptable response rate? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 106-108.

Mundey, J. 1981, Jack Mundey: Green bans and beyond. Sydney: Angus & Robertson Publishers.

316

Munro, K. 2011, 'Cruise Ship Terminal to go Ahead'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 18 October, p. 5, accessed 18 October 2011 from Factiva.

Murphy, A. B. 2013, Territory's Continuing Allure. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol. 103, no. 5, pp. 1212-1226.

Murray, C. 2004, Rethinking Neighbourhoods: From urban villages to cultural hubs. In City of Quarters: Urban villages in the contemporary city, eds. D. Bell & M. Jayne, pp. 191-206. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Murray, W. E. 2009, Neoliberalism and Development. In International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, eds. R. Kitchin & N. Thrift, 379-384. Oxford: Elsevier.

National Shelter & Australian Council of Social Service. 2003, Rent Assistance: Does it deliver affordability?, accessed 15 August 2012, http://www2.sprc.unsw.edu.au/ASPC2003/papers/Paper65.pdf.

National Trust of Australia. 2010, Barangaroo: The national trust alternative concepts, accessed 26 January 2011, http://www.nationaltrust.com.au/barangaroo/.

Newman, K. & Wyly, E. 2006, The Right to Stay Put, Revisited: Gentrification and resistance to displacement in New York City. Urban Studies, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 23-57.

Nicholls, S. 2011, 'I'm Not for Muzzling: Keating quits'. The Sydney Morning Herald, May 7, p. 1, accessed 7 May 2011 from Factiva.

Nicholls, S. 2015, 'Call for rethink of $1.3b casino plan to protect public realm'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 26 May 2015, p. 3, accessed from Factiva.

Nicholls, S. & Moore, M. 2011, 'Back to the Drawing Board'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 13 May, p. 1, accessed 13 May 2011 from Factiva.

Norrie, A. J. 2006, 'Blotting Out the Memory of Sydney's Hungry Mile'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 16 September, p. 8, accessed 7 April 2008 from Factiva.

Norrie, J. & Pearlman, J. 2006, 'The $750,000 Harbourfront Bargains'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 21 November, p. 1, accessed 19 May 2009 from Factiva.

NSW Audit Office. 1998, Performance Audit Report: Review of Walsh Bay, accessed 24 June 2009, http://www.audit.nsw.gov.au/publications/reports/performance/1998/walshbay/chronev.htm.

NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. 2010, Local Government Area Hotspot Maps, accessed 25 May 2011, http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/Hotspots_2010_Sydney. pdf/$file/Hotspots_2010_Sydney.pdf.

NSW Department of Planning. 2007, Barangaroo Concept Plan: Director General’s Environmental Assessment Report, Sydney. accessed 8 October 2008, http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/asp/pdf/06_0162_environmental_assessment_report.pdf.

317

NSW Government. 1998, State Environmental Planning Policy No 55— Remediation of Land.

NSW Government. 2005a, A City of Cities: A plan for Sydney’s future, accessed 18 July 2012, http://www.metrostrategy.nsw.gov.au/dev/uploads/paper/introduction/images/MetroStrategy_ _0_INTRODUCTION.pdf.

NSW Government. 2005b, Economy and Employment Strategy for Sydney, accessed 18 July 2012, http://www.metrostrategy.nsw.gov.au/dev/uploads/paper/employment/images/EconomyEmpl oyment_FINAL.pdf.

NSW Government. 2006, New Look, New Name for Sydney Foreshore Precinct, accessed media release, 8 October 2009, http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/mediarelplan/fs20061018_427.html.

NSW Government. 2010a, Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036, accessed 30 July 2012, http://metroplansydney.nsw.gov.au/Portals/0/pdf/METRO2036_COMPLETE.pdf.

NSW Government. 2010b, Metropolitan Plan For Sydney 2036: Strategic direction D, housing Sydney's population, accessed 15 April 2011, http://metroplansydney.nsw.gov.au/portals/0/pdf/METRO2036_D_HOUSING.pdf.

NSW Planning Assessment Commission. 2011, Annual Report 2010-2011, accessed 2 June 2012, http://www.pac.nsw.gov.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=FwdQ1nE-2gU%3d&tabid=38.

O'Brien, G. 1999, 'Heritage Groups at War Over Wharves'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 27 February, p. 17, accessed 14 October 2010 from Factiva.

O'Brien, G. & Doherty, L. 1999, 'Wharf Demolition to go Ahead'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 26 May, p. 3, accessed 7 April 2008 from Factiva.

O'Brien, G. & Totaro, P. 1989, 'Old Sydney's Last Stand'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 8 April, p. 82, accessed 7 April 2008 from Factiva.

O'Leary, Z. 2004, The Essential Guide to Doing Research. London: Sage Publications.

O'Neill, P. & Moore, N. 2005, Real Institutional Responses to Neoliberalism in Australia. Geographical Research, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 19-28.

Ó Dochartaigh, N. 2011, Territoriality and Order in the North of Ireland. Irish Political Studies, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 313-328.

Office of Environment and Heritage NSW. 2009, Millers Point Conservation Area, accessed 18 June 2009, http://www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/07_subnav_02_2.cfm?itemid=5001049.

Office of Environment and Heritage NSW. 2012, Heritage Council, accessed 8 April 2012, http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/Heritage/heritagecouncil/index.htm.

318

Ong, W. J. 1982, Orality and Literacy: The technologizing of the word. London: Methuen.

Orum, A., Feagin, J. & Sjoberg, G. 1991, Introduction: The nature of the case study. In A Case for the Case Study, eds. J. Feagin, A. Orum & G. Sjoberg, pp. 1-26. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press

Paasi, A. 2003, Territory. In A Companion to Political Geography, eds. J. Agnew, K. Mitchell & G. Toal, pp. 109-122. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Parliament of New South Wales. 1999, Walsh Bay Development (Special Provisions) Bill, accessed 24 June 2009, http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC19990526010.

Patton, M. Q. 2002, Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Third Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Pauwels, L. 2011, An Integrated Conceptual Framework for Visual Social Research. In The SAGE Handbook of Visual Research Methods, eds. E. Margolis & L. Pauwels, pp. 3-23. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Pearce, G. 2013, Millers Point Public Housing, accessed 6 June 2013, http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/la/LATabDoc.nsf/0/c075a37a4f3c67b4ca257b19002 4cbe5/$FILE/Govn%20response%20to%20500+%20petition%20on%20inner%20city%20pu blic%20housing.pdf.

Pearlman, J. 2006, 'Not Hungry, Just Aboriginal Kitsch, Says Former PM'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 19 October, p. 1, accessed 7 April 2008 from Factiva.

Peleman, K. 2003, Power and Territoriality: A study of Moroccan women in Antwerp. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, vol. 94, no. 2, pp. 151-163.

Penny, S. & Redhead, S. 2009, We're Not Really Here: Manchester City, mobility and placelessness. Sport in Society, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 755-764.

Phillips, T. 2013, Analysing Quantitative Data. In Social Research Methods, Third Edition, ed. M. Walter, pp. 147-180. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Pike, B. 2011, 'Hoff Says Sign Barangaroo Petition Now'. Inner West Courier - Inner City Edition, 12 April 2011, p. 10, accessed 12 April 2011 from Factiva.

Planning Assessment Commission. 2009, Review of Recommendation in the DG’s report Modifications to Concept Plan for Barangaroo, accessed 5 July 2010, http://www.pac.nsw.gov.au/tabid/60/ctl/viewreview/mid/376/pac/7/view/readonly/myctl/rev/ Default.aspx.

Porter, L. & Barber, A. 2006, The meaning of place and state-led gentrification in Birmingham’s Eastside. City, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 215-234.

Portugali, J. 2006, Complexity Theory as a Link Between Space and Place. Environment and Planning A, vol. 38, pp. 647-664.

319

Pow, C. 2009, 'Good' and 'Real' Places: A geographical moral critique of territorial place- making. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, vol. 91, no. 2, pp. 91-105.

Pratt, G. 2000, Post-Structuralism. In Dictionary of Human Geography, eds. R. J. Johnston, D. Gregory, G. Pratt & M. Watts, pp. 625-626. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Proshansky, H., Fabian, A. & Kaminoff, R. 1983, Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 57-83.

Prosser, J. 2011, Visual Methodology: Toward a more seeing research. In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, Fourth Edition, eds. N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln, pp. 479-497. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Punch, K. 2005, Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Second Edition. London: Sage Publications.

Queensland Government. 2013, 99-Year Home Ownership Leases, accessed 5 September 2014, http://www.dnrm.qld.gov.au/land/indigenous-land/leasing-indigenous-land/homeownership-leases.

RA1 Real Estate. 2011, Barangaroo Property Management and Real Estate, accessed 13 February 2012, http://ra1realestate.com.au/suburbs/sydney-cbd/barangaroo/.

Radil, S. M., Flint, C. & Tita, G. E. 2010, Spatializing Social Networks: Using social network analysis to investigate geographies of gang rivalry, territoriality, and violence in Los Angeles. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol. 100, no. 2, pp. 307-326.

Raffestin, C. 1984, Territoriality: A reflection of the discrepancies between the organization of space and individual liberty. International Political Science Review, vol. 5, pp. 139-146.

Randolph, B. & Wood, M. 2004, The Benefits of Tenure Diversification. Final Report. Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

Rapley, T. 2011, Some Pragmatics or Qualitative Data Analysis. In Qualitative Research: Issues of theory, method and practice, Third Edition, ed. D. Silverman, pp. 273-290. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Real Estate Institute of New South Wales. 2012, Rental Market Tightens, media release, accessed http://www.reinsw.com.au/Default.aspx?PrintFriendly=True&ArticleID=11567.

Relph, E. 1976, Place and Placelessness. London: Pion.

Revill, G. 1993, Reading Rosehill: Community, identity and inner-city derby. In Place and the Politics of Identity eds. M. Keith & S. Pile, pp. 115-138. London: Routledge.

Rhodes, T. & Coomber, R. 2010, Qualitative Methods and Theory in Addictions Research. In Addiction Research Methods, eds. P. G. Miller, J. Strang & P. M. Miller, pp. 59-78. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

320

Robins, B. 2010, 'Barangaroo Site Highly Polluted, Say Documents'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 2 September, p. 6, accessed 2 September 2010 from Factiva.

Robinson, G. 2009, 'Renting in Sydney'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 4 September, p. 4, accessed 8 September 2009 from Factiva.

Robinson, T. 1995, Gentrification and Grassroots Resistance in San Francisco's Tenderloin. Urban Affairs Review, vol. 30, pp. 483-513.

Robson, G. & Butler, T. 2001, Coming to Terms with London: Middle-class Communities in a Global City. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 70- 86.

Roche, M. 2005, Historical Research and Archival Sources. In Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography, Second Edition, ed. I. Hay, pp. 133-146. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Roddewig, R. 1978, Green Bans: The birth of Australian environmental politics. Sydney: The Conservation Foundation.

Rose, D. 1984, Rethinking Gentrification: Beyond the uneven development of Marxist urban theory. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, vol 2. no. 1, pp. 47-74.

Rose, G. 1995, Place and Identity: A sense of place. In A Place in the World?: Places, cultures and Globalization, eds. D. Massey & P. Jess, pp. 87-132. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

RP Data. 2013, About RP Data, accessed 8 April 2013, http://www.myrp.com.au/n/about- us/myrp-239.

Ruehl, M. & Harley, R. 2015, 'Packer's hotel keeps growing'. The Australian Financial Review, 7 March 2015, p. 39, accessed from Factiva.

Ruming, K. 2014, “It wasn’t about public housing, it was about the way it was done”: Challenging planning not people in resisting the Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan, Australia. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 39-60.

Sack, R. 1977, Homo Geographicus. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Sack, R. D. 1983, Human Territoriality: A theory. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 55-74.

Sack, R. D. 1986, Human Territoriality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Saldaña, J. 2013, The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. London: Sage Publications.

Schaefer, F. K. 1953, Exceptionalism in Geography: A methodological examination. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 226-249.

321

Scheflen, A. E. & Ashcraft, N. 1976, Human Territories: How we behave in space-time. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Schoon, N. 2001, The Chosen City. London: Spon Press.

Schwartz, D. 1989, Visual Ethnography: Using photography in qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 119-154.

Scott, A. 2010, Hope For Millers Point Future, accessed 13 October 2010, http://sydney- central.whereilive.com.au/news/story/hope-for-millers-point-future.

Seale, C. 1999, The Quality of Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications.

Seamon, D. & Sowers, J. 2008, Place and Placelessness (1976), Edward Relph. In Key Texts in Human Geography, eds. P. Hubbard, R. Kitchen & G. Valentine, pp. 43-51. London: Sage.

Seidman, I. 2013, Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. Fourth Edition. New York: Teachers College Press.

Semken, S. & Freeman, C. B. 2008, Sense of Place in the Practice and Assessment of Place- Based Science Teaching. Science Education, vol. 92, no. 6, pp. 1042-1057.

Seo, J. 2002, Re-urbanisation in regenerated areas of Manchester and Glasgow. Cities vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 113-121.

Shamai, S. 1991, Sense of Place: An empirical measurement. Geoforum, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 347-358.

Shaw, K. 2009, The Melbourne indie music scene. In Whose Urban Renaissance? An international comparison of urban regeneration strategies, eds. L. Porter & K. Shaw, pp. 191-201. London: Routledge.

Shaw, K. S. & Hagemans, I. W. 2015, ‘Gentrification Without Displacement' and the Consequent Loss of Place: The effects of class transition on low-income residents of secure housing in gentrifying areas. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, pp. 1- 19.

Shaw, M. 1996, The History of the Battle to Save Kelly’s Bush and the Green Ban Movement in the Early 1970’s. Sydney: A Buckleys Publication.

Shaw, W. 2005, Heritage and Gentrification: Remembering 'the good old days' in postcolonial Sydney. In The New Urban Colonialism: Gentrification in a global context, eds. R. Atkinson & G. Bridge, pp. 55-71. London: Routledge.

Shaw, W. 2006, Sydney's SoHo Syndrome? Loft living in the urbane city. Cultural Geographies, vol. 13, pp. 182-206.

Shaw, W. 2007, Fixed Traditions and Locked-up Heritages: Misrepresenting Indigeneity. In Geographies of Australian Heritages: Loving a sunburned country?, eds. R. Jones & B. Shaw, pp. 95-112. Ashgate: Aldershot.

322

Slater, T. 2005, Gentrification in Canada's cities. In Gentrification in a Global Context: The new urban colonialism, eds. Atkinson & Bridge, pp. 39-56. Routledge.

Slater, T. 2006, The Eviction of Critical Perspectives from Gentrification Research. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 737-757.

Smaldone, D., Harris, C. & Sanyal, N. 2008, The Role of Time in Developing Place Meanings. Journal of Leisure Research, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 479-504.

Smale, B. 2006, Critical Perspectives on Place in Leisure Research. Leisure/Loisir, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 369-382.

Smith, D. M. 1999, Geography, Community, and Morality. Environment and Planning A, vol. 31, pp. 19-35.

Smith, M. 2007, Space, Place, and Placelessness in the Culturally Regenerated City. In Cultural Tourism: Global and local perspectives, ed. G. Richards, pp. 91-112. New York: Routledge.

Smith, N. 1979, Toward a Theory of Gentrification: A back to the city movement by capital not people. Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 45, pp. 538-548.

Smith, N. 1982, Gentrification and Uneven Development. Economic Geography, vol. 58, pp. 139-155.

Smith, N. 1986, Gentrfiication, the Frontier, and the Restructuring of Urban Space. In Gentrification of the City, eds. N. Smith & P. Williams, pp. 15-34. London: Allen and Unwin.

Smith, N. 1987a, Gentrification and the Rent-Gap. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 462-465.

Smith, N. 1996, The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the revanchist city. London: Routledge.

Smith, N. 2002, New Globalism, New Urbanism: Gentrification as Global Urban Strategy. Antipode, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 427-450.

Smith, N. & Williams, P. 1986, Alternatives to Orthodoxy: Invitation to a debate. In Gentrification of the City, eds. N. Smith & P. Williams, pp. 1-14. London: Allen and Unwin.

Smith, S. 1987b, Fear of Crime: Beyond a geography of deviance. Progress in Human Geography, vol. 11, pp. 1-23.

Snow, D. A. & Anderson, L. 1991, Researching the Homeless: The characteristic features and virtues of the case study. In A Case for the Case Study, eds. J. Feagin, A. Orum & G. Sjoberg, pp. 148-173. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Söderström, O. 2007, From Mosaic to Network: Social and cultural geography in Switzerland. Social & Cultural Geography, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 635-648.

323

Soini, K., Vaarala, H. & Pouta, E. 2012, Residents’ Sense of Place and Landscape Perceptions at the Rural–Urban Interface. Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 104, no. 1, pp. 124-134.

Soja, E. 1971, The Political Organization of Space. Washington DC: Association of American Geographers.

Spain, D. 1993, Been-Heres Versus Come-Heres Negotiating Conflicting Community Identities. Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 156-171.

Sparkes, A. C. & Smith, B. 2014, Qualitative Research Methods in Sport, Exercise and Health: From process to product. New York: Routledge.

Spearritt, P. 1991, Money, Taste and Industrial Heritage. In Packaging the Past? Public histories, eds. J. Rickard & P. Spearritt, pp. 33-45. Carlton: Melbourne University Press.

State Library of New South Wales. 2008, William Bradley (1757?-1833), accessed 15 May 2009, http://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/discover_collections/history_nation/terra_australis/charts_maps/bra dley_charts/.

Stedman, R. C. 2003, Is It Really Just a Social Construction: The contribution of the physical environment to sense of place. Society and Natural Resources, vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 671-685.

Stimson, R. 1995, Emergence of a New Space Economy of Cities and Regions in Australia. In Cities in Competition: Productive and sustainable cities for the 21st Century, eds. J. Brotchie, M. Batty, E. Blakely, P. Hall & P. Newton, pp. 58-87. Melbourne: Longman Australia.

Stokowski, P. A. 2002, Languages of Place and Discourses of Power: Constructing new senses of place. Journal of Leisure Research, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 368-382.

Storey, D. 2001, Territory: The claiming of space. Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Streeck, W. & Thelen, K. 2005, Introduction: Institutional change in advanced political economies. In Beyond continuity: Institutional change in advanced political economies, eds. W. Streeck & K. Thelen, pp. 3-39. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stretton, H. 1989, Ideas for Australian Cities. Third Edition. Sydney: Transit Australia.

Sussex, M. & Penn, S. 2011, Barangaroo Review, accessed 8 October 2011, http://www.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/pdf/Barangaroo%20Review_FINALREPORT_080 82011.pdf.

Susskind, A. 1997, 'French Twist to Walsh Bay Plan'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 7 February, p. 4, accessed 7 April 2008 from Factiva.

Susskind, A. 1998, 'Bay Watch'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 17 February, p. 11, accessed 7 April 2008 from Factiva.

324

Sydney Cove Property. 2013a, 168 Kent Street Sydney, accessed 1 March 2013, http://www.realestate.com.au/property-apartment-nsw-sydney-409889939.

Sydney Cove Property. 2013b, 183 Kent Street Sydney, accessed 26 March 2013, http://www.domain.com.au/Property/For-Rent/Apartment-Unit- Flat/NSW/Sydney/?adid=8168775.

Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority. 2005, East Darling Harbour, Sydney Urban Design Competition 2005 Media Brief, accessed 17 July 2012, http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/plansforaction/pdf/final_mediabrief_05.pdf.

Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority. 2008, The Rocks Discovery Museum: Explore the histories. Sydney.

Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority. 2009, Heritage and History: 20th Century transformations, accessed 26 April 2009, http://www.therocks.com/sydney- Education_and_Tours-Heritage_and_History-10th_Century_Transformations.htm.

Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority. 2011, The Rocks, accessed 15 July 2011, http://www.therocks.com/.

Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority. 2013, About Us, accessed 28 March 2013, http://www.shfa.nsw.gov.au/sydney-About_us.htm.

Sydney Ports Corporation. 2012, Sydney Ports Corporation Handbook: 7th Edition, accessed 17 August 2012, http://www.sydneyports.com.au/?a=17550.

Tabcorp. 2012, About Tabcorp, accessed 11 August 2012, http://tab.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/107.

Terenzini, F. 2010, Millers Point City Public Housing, Letter, accessed 17 November 2010, http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/la/latabdoc.nsf/0/8163b86536f4e754ca257793001c6 5cc/$FILE/terenzini-moore%20city%20housing%20stock.pdf.

The Property Council of Australia. 2009, Preferred Partner for Barangaroo Puts Sydney on the World Stage, media release, accessed 21 December 2009, http://www.propertyoz.com.au/nsw/Article/Resource.aspx?p=21&media=1525.

The Property Council of Australia. 2011, Tenant Demand Highest in Over Three Years, media release, accessed 15 February 2011, http://www.propertyoz.com.au/nsw/library/110203%20Sydney%20- %20Press%20Release%20OMR.pdf.

The Sydney Morning Herald. 2006, 'Panel Takes Rap for Renaming 'Hungry Mile''. The Sydney Morning Herald, 14 September 2006, p. 4, accessed 7 April 2008 from Factiva.

The Sydney Morning Herald. 2012a, Does Sydney Need a Second Casino?, accessed March 2 2012, http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/the-question/does-sydney-need-a-second-casino- 20120302-1u7mp.html.

325

The Sydney Morning Herald. 2012b, 'The Light and Dark of Planning in Sydney'. 4 August, p. 13, accessed 4 August 2012 from Factiva.

Thelen, K. 2002, The Explanatory Power of Historical Institutionalism. In Akteure- Mechanismen–Modelle [Actors-Mechanisms Models], ed. R. Mayntz, pp. 91-107. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.

Theodori, G. & Luloff, A. 2000, Urbanization and Community Attachment in Rural Areas. Society & Natural Resources, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 399-420.

Theodori, G. L. 2000, Levels of Analysis and Conceptual Clarification in Community Attachment and Satisfaction Research: Connections to community development. Journal of the Community Development Society, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 35-58.

Theodori, G. L. 2001, Examining the Effects of Community Satisfaction and Attachment on Individual Well-Being. Rural Sociology, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 618-628.

Thomas, M. E. 2009, Auto-Photography. In International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, eds. R. Kitchin & N. Thrift, 244-251. Oxford: Elsevier.

Thorns, D. C. 2002, The Transformation of Cities: Urban theory and urban life. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Thrift, N. 2003, Space: the fundamental stuff of geography. In Key Concepts in Geography, eds. S. Holloway, S. Rice & G. Valentine, pp. 95-108. London: Sage.

Tiwitoo. 2010, Alt Byte: A very public conversation, accessed 17 June 2010, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJr5BQSGtQw.

Tönnies, F. 1955, Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft (Community and Society). London: Routledge.

Tönnies, F. 1957, Community and Society. First publ. 1887; transl. Loomis, C. E. New York: Harper Torchbook.

Toon, J. 1986, Sydney: Restoring Australia's historic core. Built Environment (1978-), vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 153-164.

Totaro, P. 1989, 'Green Ban Threat on Millers Point Properties'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 8 April, p. 13, accessed 19 May 2009 from Factiva.

Tovey, J. 2010a, 'Heritage Under the Hammer: Tenants feel the pinch'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 14 August, p. 4, accessed 14 August 2010 from Factiva.

Tovey, J. 2010b, 'Millers Point Lease Sales are 'Depleting' Cheap Housing Stock'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 8 October, p. 5, accessed 8 October 2010 from Factiva.

Tovey, J. 2010c, 'Millers Point Residents Angry Over More Home Sales'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 31 July, p. 5, accessed 31 July 2010 from Factiva.

326

Tovey, J. 2012, 'Residents Stick to their Point of Community'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 26 October, p. 8, accessed 26 October 2012 from Factiva.

Tovey, J. & Munro, K. 2010, 'Injunction Sought to Stop Toxic Pollutants'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 30 November, p. 3, accessed 30 November 2010 from Factiva.

Transfield. 2008, Past Activities: Walsh Bay Redevelopment Project, accessed 3 July 2009, http://www.transfield.com.au/activities/walshbay.htm.

Travel Oz. 2008, The Rocks: Birthplace of a nation. Sydney.

Trentelman, C. K. 2009, Place Attachment and Community Attachment: A primer grounded in the lived experience of a community sociologist. Society & Natural Resources, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 191-210.

Tropman & Tropman Architects. 2006, The Parbury Museum Archaeology & Exhibition Design, accessed 4 February 2010, http://www.tropmanarchitects.com.au/index_files/Page8822.htm.

Tuan, Y. F. 1977, Space and Place: The perspective of experience. London: Edward Arnold.

Uguris, T. 2004, Space, Power and Participation: Ethnic and gender divisions in tenants' participation in public housing. Burlington: Ashgate.

Uitermark, J., Duyvendak, J. & Kleinhans, R. 2007, Gentrification as a Governmental Strategy: Social control and social cohesion in Hoogvliet, Rotterdam. Environment and Planning A, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 125-141.

Valentine, G. 2001, Social Geographies: Space and society. Pearson Education: Essex. van Gent, W. P. C. 2013, Neoliberalization, Housing Institutions and Variegated Gentrification: How the ‘Third Wave’ Broke in Amsterdam. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 503-522.

Van Patten, S. R. & Williams, D. R. 2008, Problems in Place: Using discursive social psychology to investigate the meanings of seasonal homes. Leisure Sciences, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 448-464.

Van Weesep, J. 1994, Gentrification as a Research Frontier. Progress in Human Geography, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 74-83.

Vanguarde Estate Agents. 2012a, 804/127 Kent Street, Sydney, accessed 18 February 2012, http://www.domain.com.au/Property/For-Sale/Apartment/NSW/Sydney/?adid=2008775981.

Vanguarde Estate Agents. 2012b, 813/187 Kent Street Sydney, accessed 1 July 2012, http://www.domain.com.au/Property/For-Sale/Apartment-Unit- Flat/NSW/Sydney/?adid=2009714738.

327

Vanguarde Estate Agents. 2013, Unit 209/187 Kent Street, accessed 26 March 2013, http://www.thehomepage.com.au/property/residential/unit-209-187-kent-street-street- sydney/564730.

Vartanian, T. P. 2010, Secondary Data Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Venables, D., Pidgeon, N. F., Parkhill, K. A., Henwood, K. L. & Simmons, P. 2012, Living with Nuclear Power: Sense of place, proximity, and risk perceptions in local host communities. Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 371-383.

Vollaard, H. 2009, The Logic of Political Territoriality. Geopolitics, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 687- 706.

Wainwright, R. 2006, 'You Can't Help But Think We're Not Wanted'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 18 November, p. 7, accessed 19 May 2009 from Factiva.

Wainwright, R., Norrie, J. & Maley, J. 2006, 'Empty Homes That Will Make Renters Weep'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 18 November, p. 1, accessed 19 May 2009 from Factiva.

Waitt, G. & McGuirk, P. M. 1996, Marking time: Tourism and heritage representation at Millers Point, Sydney. Australian Geographer, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 11-29.

Waitt, G. & McGuirk, P. M. 1997, Selling Waterfront Heritage: A critique of Millers Point, Sydney. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, vol. 88, no. 4, pp. 342-352.

Walks, A. & Maaranen, R. 2008, Gentrification, Social Mix, and Social Polarization: Testing the linkages in large Canadian cities. Urban Geography, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 293-326.

Walsh Bay Arts & Commerce. 2013, Welcome to Walsh Bay, accessed 21 February 2013, http://www.walshbaysydney.com/.

Walsh Bay Finance Pty Ltd. 2003, Planning Report: Hickson Road and Towns Place, accessed 17 May 2011, http://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/assessingdev/pdf/planningreporthickson.pdf.

Walsh Bay Partnership. 2003, Walsh Bay: Harbourside renaissance. Victoria: Hardie Grant Publishing.

Walsh Bay Partnership. 2009, Wander the Walsh Bay Heritage Walk, accessed 17 February 2009, http://www.walshbaysydney.com.au/heritagewalk.html.

Walter, M. 2013, Surveys. In Social Research Methods, Third Edition, ed. M. Walter, pp. 119-146. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Watson, S. 1991, Gilding the Smokestacks: The new symbolic representations of deindustrialised regions. Environment and planning D, Society and Space, vol. 9, pp. 59-70.

Weeks, J. 1990, The Value of Difference. In Identity: Community, culture, difference, ed. J. Rutherford, pp. 88-100. London: Lawrence & Wishart.

328

Wentworth, H. & Flexner, S. B. 1975, Dictionary of American Slang. New York: Crowell.

West, M. 2012, 'Packer ups Ante with Barangaroo as Crown Jewel'. The Sydney Morning Herald, 3 March, p. 2, accessed 3 March 2012 from Factiva.

Whereis. 2011, Millers and Dawes Points, 33o51'30.15"S, 151o12'12.91"E, elevation 23M, accessed 20 April 2013, http://www.whereis.com/.

White, R. 2013, Doing Evaluation Research. In Social Research Methods, Third Edition, ed. M. Walter, pp. 292-314. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Williams, P. 1986, Class Constitution Through Spatial Reconstruction? A re-evaluation of gentrification in Australia, Britain, and the United States. In Gentrification of the City, eds. N. Smith & P. Williams, pp. 56-77. London: Allen and Unwin.

Williams, P. & Smith, N. 1986, From “Renaissance” to Restructuring: The dynamics of contemporary urban development. In Gentrification of the City, eds. N. Smith & P. Williams, pp. 204-224. London: Allen and Unwin.

Willis, K. 2013, Analysing Qualitative Data. In Social Research Methods, Third Edition, ed. M. Walter, pp. 316-336. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Wilson, A. 2014, Housing Market Report, accessed 8 October 2014, http://www.domain.com.au/content/files/apm/reports/AP1400103_HousingMarketReport_Ja n_APM.pdf.

Wilson, D., Wouters, J. & Grammenos, D. 2004, Successful protect-community discourse: spatiality and politics in Chicago's Pilsen neighborhood. Environment and Planning A 2004, vol. 36, pp. 1173-1190.

Winder, G. M. 2009, Historical Geography. In International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, eds. R. Kitchin & N. Thrift, 152-157. Oxford: Elsevier.

Wulff, M., Reynolds, M., Arunachalam, D., Hulse, K. & Yates, J. 2011, Australia’s Private Rental Market: The supply of, and demand for, affordable dwellings. AHURI Final Report No.168. Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

Wyly, E. & Hammel, D. J. 2004, Gentrification, segregation, and discrimination in the American urban system. Environment and Planning A, vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 1215-1242.

Wyly, E. & Hammel, D. 2005, Mapping neo-liberal American urbanism. In Gentrification in a Global Context: The new urban colonialism, eds. R. Atkinson & G. Bridge, pp. 18-38. London: Routledge.

Yembilah, R. & Grant, M. 2014, The Political Ecology of Territoriality: Territorialities in farmer–herder relationships in Northern Ghana. GeoJournal, vol. 79, no. 3, pp. 385-400.

Yin, R. 1989, Case Study Research: Design and methods. California: Sage.

Yin, R. K. 2011, Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. New York: The Guilford Press.

329

Zaheer, S. & Nachum, L. 2011, Sense of Place: From location resources to MNE locational capital. Global Strategy Journal, vol. 1, no. 1-2, pp. 96-108.

Ziller, R. C. 1990, Photographing the Self: Methods for observing personal orientations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Zukin, S. 1982a, Loft Living as `Historic Compromise' in the Urban Core: The New York experience. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 6, pp. 256-257.

Zukin, S. 1982b, Loft Living: Culture and capital in urban change. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Zukin, S. 2009, Naked City: The death and life of authentic urban places. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

330

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I: Socio-economic attributes of participants based on community type:

Table 1: Residents of the traditional community Respondent number Age Duration of Tenure type Occupation residency #1 55 and above 15 years Rent Records manager #2 36-54 14.5 years Rent Artist #3 36-54 25 years Rent Self employed #4 55 and above 60+ years Rent Retired #5 55 and above 30 years Rent Retired #6 36-54 20 years Rent Postman #7 55 and above 39 years Rent Retired #8 36-54 3 years Rent Logistics #9 55 and above 20 years Rent Pensioner #11 36-54 13 years Rent Performer #12 36-54 35 years Rent Pension

Table 2: Residents of the new community Respondent number Age Duration of Tenure type Occupation residency #10 36-54 7 years Rent Solicitor #13 55 and above 2.5 years Own Retired #14 55 and above 5 years Own Retired #15 55 and above 8 years Own Retired #16 55 and above 2 years Own Director #17 36-54 6 months Own Teacher #18 55 and above 7 years Own Retired #19 36-54 7 months Own Writer #20 36-54 3.5 years Rent IT Programmer #21 55 and above 13 years Own Retired #22 36-54 4 years Own Manager #23 36-54 8 years Own Executive #24 26-35 3 months Rent Journalist

331

APPENDIX II: Pilot survey

Resident Survey:

Personal Details:

1. How many people in each age group occupy your premises? (please NUMBER)

□ Under 18

□ 18 – 25

□ 26 – 35

□ 36 – 54

□ 55 and above

2. How would you describe your ethnicity? (please tick) □ United Kingdom □ Chinese (Mainland) □ Chinese (Hong Kong) □ New Zealand □ Anglo □ Australian □ Other (please specify): ______

3. What is your occupation? ______

Premises Details:

4. How long have you lived in The Rocks? □ 6 months to 1 year □ 1 year to 5 years □ 5 years to 10 years □ 10 years to 20 years □ > 20 years

5. How long do you intend to reside in your premises? (please tick) □ 6 months to 1 year □ 1 year to 5 years □ 5 years to 10 years □ 10 years to 20 years □ > 20 years □ Don’t know

332

Neighbourhood Living:

6. Where did you live previously? City:______Suburb: ______

7. What were your main reasons for choosing to live here? (please tick the box(es) that best applies to you) □ Affordability □ Government placement □ Recreation □ Friends live here or nearby □ Family live here or nearby □ Architecture □ Proximity to CBD □ Proximity to work □ Proximity to transport □ Other (please specify): ______

Neighbours and Community:

8. How aesthetically pleasing do you find your neighbourhood? (please circle) Not Appealing Extremely Appealing 1 2 3 4 5

9. How would you describe your relationship with your neighbours in your community? ______[please use last page or another sheet of paper for more writing space]

10. How satisfied are you with this relationship with your neighbours? (please circle) Not Satisfied Extremely Satisfied 1 2 3 4 5

11. How high of a priority has it been of yours to form a relationship with your neighbours? (please circle) Not High Extremely High 1 2 3 4 5

12. How safe do you feel in your neighbourhood? (please circle) Not Safe Extremely Safe 1 2 3 4 5

333

13. If you do not feel ‘Extremely Safe’, please describe which features of your neighbourhood that concern you. ______

14. If you have any concerns about the future character of your neighbourhood, what are they? ______

15. How satisfied are you with the council’s planning of your suburb? Not Satisfied Extremely Satisfied 1 2 3 4 5

16. If you are not extremely satisfied, please describe the features that concern you. ______

17. How would you describe the character of Millers Point? ______

18. What do you think of the proposed redevelopment of the site on the Western side of Millers Point, ‘Barangaroo’, which is also known as ‘The Hungry Mile’? ______

19. What are your views about the current leasing of public housing to the private market in the Millers Point area? ______

20. How would you describe the character of Walsh Bay (also known as Dawes Point)? ______

334

Please add any other comments you wish to express: ______

If you wish to further participate with this project, please leave your name and contact details below. Name:______Mobile Number:______Email Address:______

Thank you for your time and cooperation in completing this survey

335

APPENDIX III: Survey cover letter

School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Science FACULTY OF SCIENCE Approval No. 1026

Urban Redevelopment in Millers and Dawes Points

Dear Resident,

My name is Helen Karathomas and I am a PhD student at the University of New South Wales. For this, I am researching Millers and Dawes Point and as a resident of this area I seek your help and knowledge. I would like to invite you to participate in this study by completing the questionnaire attached to this letter – it will take no longer than five minutes to complete.

Please answer as many questions as you can – any feedback is warmly welcomed and your cooperation is greatly appreciated! Your answers will remain completely confidential. Once you have completed the questionnaire, please return it using the enclosed reply-paid envelope (no stamp required).

As part of this research, you are also invited to participate in a special project called ‘Community Eyes’. You will be provided with a free disposable camera to capture your favourite features of your suburb and then partake in a short interview about the photographs you have taken. A selection of your photos will be collated into a short book showcasing the distinctiveness of your suburb. To take part in this exciting opportunity please include your contact details on the last page of the questionnaire.

Any information obtained for this study that can be identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission, except as required by law. I plan to publish the results as part of my PhD thesis. In any publication, information will be provided in such a way that you cannot be identified. Your decision whether or not to participate will not prejudice your future relations with the University of New South Wales. If you decide to participate, you are free to withdraw your consent and to discontinue participation at any time without prejudice. The information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential and cannot be disclosed. If you have any complaints please direct them to the Ethics Secretariat (see below).

If you have any questions or concerns following your participation, feel free to contact me on 0415 118 504 and I will be happy to address them. Alternatively, you can contact my supervisor Dr Wendy Shaw on 9385 3715.

Yours sincerely

Helen Karathomas

BEES, LG5, Samuels Building UNSW SYDNEY NSW 2052 Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0415 118 504

336

APPENDIX IV: Survey advertisement

Have YOUR say about YOUR neighbourhood

You are invited to participate in a study conducted by the University of NSW.

Please take a yellow envelope from the box.

337

APPENDIX V: Survey for social housing residents in Millers Point

You are invited to take part in a study based on your suburb. I would like to advise you that your comments will be kept strictly confidential.

PERSONAL DETAILS: 1. How many people in each age group occupy your premises and what is their occupation? Age Group Number of people Occupation(s) in each age group Under 18 18 – 25 26 – 35 36 – 54 55 and above

2. What is your country of birth? (please tick) □ United Kingdom □ Australia □ Chinese (Mainland) □ Chinese (Hong Kong) □ New Zealand □ Other:______

HOME DETAILS: 3. Do you own or rent your premises? □ Own □ Rent

4. How long have you lived in Millers Point? ______

5. How long do you intend to reside in your premises? ______

6. Where did you live before moving to Millers Point? City:______Suburb: ______

338

7. Why do you live here? (please tick as many boxes as you wish) □ Born in the area □ Cheap rent □ Friends live here or nearby □ Close to all social facilities □ Family live here or nearby □ No choice □ Close to CBD □ Recreation/ Entertainment □ Close to work □ Architecture □ Close to transport □ Heritage and history of the area □ Availability of cultural and leisure activities □ Other (please specify): ______

8. How frequently do you visit the following places? (please tick a frequency for each row)

Weekly Fortnightly Monthly Rarely Never Hero of Waterloo Hotel The Captain Cook Hotel Lord Nelson Hotel The Harbour View Hotel Local Corner Shops Local Festivals Local Public Transport Local Churches Sydney Dance Company Walsh Bay Eateries Sydney Opera House Observatory Hill The Museum of Sydney Sydney Theatre Company

9. Please rate the look of your suburb? (please circle) Not Attractive Very Attractive 1 2 3 4 5

10. How safe do you feel in your neighbourhood? (please circle) Not Safe Extremely Safe 1 2 3 4 5

11. If you do NOT feel ‘Extremely Safe’, please describe which features of your neighbourhood concern you. ______

12. How would you describe the character of Millers Point? ______

339

13. How do you think Millers Point’s character differs from Walsh Bay’s (also known as Dawes Point) character? ______

14. How would you describe the character of The Rocks? ______

15. Do you have concerns about the future character of your suburb? □ Yes □ No

16. If ‘Yes’, what concerns?______

17. Do any of these issues bother you in your neighbourhood? □ Noise □ Plans for new skate park □ New developments □ Overcrowding □ Graffiti □ Vandalism and hooliganism □ Crime □ Available parking □ Litter and rubbish in the streets □ Dogs □ Homeless people □ None of these issues bother me □ Other:- ______

YOUR COMMUNITY: 18. How would you describe the community atmosphere in Millers Point? ______

19. How connected do you feel to this community? No Connection Strong Connection 1 2 3 4 5

20. Has forming a relationship with your neighbours been a high priority? (please circle) Not High Extremely High 1 2 3 4 5

21. How would you describe your relationship with your neighbours in your community? □ No relationship □ Ok □ Minimal □ Friendly □ Poor □ Very good □ Other:______340

22. How satisfied are you with this relationship? (please circle) Not Satisfied Extremely Satisfied 1 2 3 4 5

23. Do you think the wider local community accepts the public housing community? (please circle) Definitely Not Definitely 1 2 3 4 5

24. Are you aware of any concerns that private householders might have about local public housing residents? If ‘yes’, please describe them. ______

25. What are your opinions about the recent sale of Housing NSW (public housing) terrace homes? ______

26. Do you think Millers and Dawes Point would benefit from more public housing? □ Yes □ No

27. Why? In what ways? ______

MILLERS POINT’S HERITAGE 28. How would you rate your knowledge of your neighbourhood’s history? Poor Knowledge Great Knowledge 1 2 3 4 5

29. How important is the heritage and history to the identity of Millers Point? Not important Extremely Important 1 2 3 4 5

30. Do you think the plaques around Walsh Bay tell the story of the area well? (see photograph below) Inaccurate Very well told 1 2 3 4 5

341

DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING 31. Do you think the Walsh Bay developments (the finger wharves) have been a positive influence for Millers and Dawes Point? Not Positive Extremely positive 1 2 3 4 5 32. Why/ Why not? ______

33. What is your opinion about ‘Barangaroo’ (i.e. the new proposed development being built on the Western side of Millers and Dawes Point, also known as ‘The Hungry Mile’)? ______

34. How satisfied are you with the government’s planning with the area? Not Satisfied Extremely Satisfied 1 2 3 4 5

35. If you are not extremely satisfied, please say why. ______

36. Based on the local planning of your neighbourhood, who do you think your neighbourhood is designed for? (please tick as many boxes as you wish) □ Local residents □ City workers □ Local visitors □ Overseas tourists □ Other:______

37. From the list below, what would you like to see improved for your suburb? (please tick as many boxes as you wish) □ Public transport service □ Local amenities, parks and leisure □ Shopping and commercial facilities facilities □ Amount and quality of housing □ Local health services □ Availability of jobs □ Opportunities and facilities for children and young people

342

□ Quality of environment □ Nothing, it’s already fine! □ Schools □ Other:______

38. If you have been living in the area for longer than 5 years, how do you feel about the changes your neighbourhood has experienced over time? (please tick) □ Area has improved □ Area has not changed much □ Area has worsened □ Have lived here less than 5 years □ Other: ______

39. How has your neighbourhood changed or not changed? ______

40. Overall how satisfied are you about living in your neighbourhood? (please circle) Not Satisfied Extremely Satisfied 1 2 3 4 5

41. Please add any other comments about your suburb that you would like us to know about. ______

You are invited to participate in a special project called ‘Community Eyes’. You will be provided with a free disposable camera to capture your favourite features of your suburb and then partake in a short interview about the photographs you have taken.

A selection of your photos will be collated into a short book showcasing the distinctiveness of your suburb.

If you would like to be part of this exciting opportunity, or participate in a follow-up interview, please leave your details below. Please remember that all information is purely confidential.

Name:______Mobile Number:______Email Address:______

Thank you for your time and cooperation in completing this survey.

343

APPENDIX VI: Survey for private dwelling residents in Millers Point

You are invited to take part in a study based on your suburb. I would like to advise you that your comments will be kept strictly confidential.

2. What is your country of birth? (please tick) □ United Kingdom □ Australia □ Chinese (Mainland) □ Chinese (Hong Kong) □ New Zealand □ Other:______

HOME DETAILS: 3. Do you own or rent your premises? □ Own □ Rent

4. How long have you lived in Millers Point? ______

5. How long do you intend to reside in your premises? ______

6. Where did you live before moving to Millers Point? City:______Suburb: ______

344

8. How frequently do you visit the following places? (please tick a frequency for each row)

9. Please rate the look of your suburb? (please circle) Not Attractive Very Attractive 1 2 3 4 5

10. How safe do you feel in your neighbourhood? (please circle) Not Safe Extremely Safe 1 2 3 4 5

11. If you do NOT feel ‘Extremely Safe’, please describe which features of your neighbourhood concern you. ______

12. How would you describe the character of Millers Point? ______

13. How do you think Millers Point’s character differs from Walsh Bay’s (also known as Dawes Point) character? ______

14. How would you describe the character of The Rocks? ______

345

15. Do you have concerns about the future character of your suburb? □ Yes □ No

16. If ‘Yes’, what concerns?______

YOUR COMMUNITY: 18. How would you describe the community atmosphere in Millers Point? ______

19. How connected do you feel to this community? No Connection Strong Connection 1 2 3 4 5

20. Has forming a relationship with your neighbours been a high priority? (please circle) Not High Extremely High 1 2 3 4 5

21. How would you describe your relationship with your neighbours in your community? □ No relationship □ Ok □ Minimal □ Friendly □ Poor □ Very good □ Other:______

22. How satisfied are you with this relationship? (please circle) Not Satisfied Extremely Satisfied 1 2 3 4 5

23. Do you think public housing residents cause concerns for the local community? No Concerns Extreme Concerns 1 2 3 4 5

346

24. If you have concerns, please describe them. ______

25. What are your opinions about the recent sale of Housing NSW (public housing) terrace homes? ______

26. Do you think Millers and Dawes Point would benefit from more public housing? □ Yes □ No

27. Why? In what ways? ______

MILLERS POINT’S HERITAGE 28. How would you rate your knowledge of your neighbourhood’s history? Poor Knowledge Great Knowledge 1 2 3 4 5

29. How important is the heritage and history to the identity of Millers Point? Not important Extremely Important 1 2 3 4 5

30. Do you think the plaques around Walsh Bay tell the story of the area well? (see photograph below) Inaccurate Very well told 1 2 3 4 5

DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING 31. Do you think the Walsh Bay developments (the finger wharves) have been a positive influence for Millers and Dawes Point? Not Positive Extremely positive 1 2 3 4 5

347

32. Why/ Why not? ______

33. What is your opinion about ‘Barangaroo’ (i.e. the new proposed development being built on the Western side of Millers and Dawes Point, also known as ‘The Hungry Mile’)? ______

34. How satisfied are you with the government’s planning with the area? Not Satisfied Extremely Satisfied 1 2 3 4 5

35. If you are not extremely satisfied, please say why. ______

37. From the list below, what would you like to see improved for your suburb? (please tick as many boxes as you wish) □ Public transport service □ Local health services □ Shopping and commercial facilities □ Opportunities and facilities for □ Amount and quality of housing children and young people □ Availability of jobs □ Quality of environment □ Local amenities, parks and leisure □ Schools facilities □ Nothing, it’s already fine! □ Other:______

38. If you have been living in the area for longer than 5 years, how do you feel about the changes your neighbourhood has experienced over time? (please tick) □ Area has improved □ Area has worsened □ Area has not changed much □ Have lived here less than 5 years □ Other: ______

39. How has your neighbourhood changed or not changed? ______

348

40. Overall how satisfied are you about living in your neighbourhood? (please circle) Not Satisfied Extremely Satisfied 1 2 3 4 5

41. Please add any other comments about your suburb that you would like us to know about. ______

A selection of your photos will be collated into a short book showcasing the distinctiveness of your suburb.

If you would like to be part of this exciting opportunity, or participate in a follow-up interview, please leave your details below. Please remember that all information is purely confidential.

Name:______Mobile Number:______Email Address:______

Thank you for your time and cooperation in completing this survey.

349

APPENDIX VII: Survey for private dwelling residents in Dawes Point

You are invited to take part in a study based on your suburb. I would like to advise you that your comments will be kept strictly confidential.

2. What is your country of birth? (please tick) □ United Kingdom □ Australia □ Chinese (Mainland) □ Chinese (Hong Kong) □ New Zealand □ Other: ______

HOME DETAILS: 3. Do you own or rent your premises? □ Own □ Rent

4. How long have you lived in Dawes Point? ______

5. How long do you intend to reside in your premises? ______

6. Where did you live before moving to Dawes Point?

City:______Suburb: ______

350

8. How frequently do you visit the following places? (please tick a frequency for each row)

9. Please rate the look of your suburb? (please circle) Not Attractive Very Attractive 1 2 3 4 5

10. How safe do you feel in your neighbourhood? (please circle) Not Safe Extremely Safe 1 2 3 4 5

11. If you do NOT feel ‘Extremely Safe’, please describe which features of your neighbourhood concern you. ______

12. How would you describe the character of Walsh Bay (also known as Dawes Point)? ______

351

13. How do you think Walsh Bay’s character differs from Millers Point’s character? ______

14. How would you describe the character of The Rocks? ______

15. Do you have concerns about the future character of your suburb? □ Yes □ No

16. If ‘Yes’, what concerns?______

YOUR COMMUNITY: 18. How would you describe the community atmosphere in Walsh Bay? ______

19. How connected do you feel to this community? No Connection Strong Connection 1 2 3 4 5

20. Has forming a relationship with your neighbours been a high priority? (please circle) Not High Extremely High 1 2 3 4 5

21. How would you describe your relationship with your neighbours in your community? □ No relationship □ Ok □ Minimal □ Friendly □ Poor □ Very good □ Other:______

352

22. How satisfied are you with this relationship? (please circle) Not Satisfied Extremely Satisfied 1 2 3 4 5 23. Do you think public housing residents cause concerns for the local community? No Concerns Extreme Concerns 1 2 3 4 5

24. If you have concerns, please describe them. ______

25. What are your opinions about the recent sale of Housing NSW (public housing) terrace homes? ______

Do you think Millers Point and Walsh Bay would benefit from more public housing? □ Yes □ No

26. Why? In what ways? ______

WALSH BAY’S HERITAGE 27. How would you rate your knowledge of your neighbourhood’s history? Poor Knowledge Great Knowledge 1 2 3 4 5

28. How important is the heritage and history to the identity of your neighbourhood? Not important Extremely Important 1 2 3 4 5

29. Do you think the plaques around Walsh Bay tell the story of the area well? (see photograph below) Inaccurate Very well told 1 2 3 4 5

353

DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING 30. Do you think the Walsh Bay developments (the finger wharves) have been a positive influence for Millers and Dawes Point? Not Positive Extremely positive 1 2 3 4 5 31. Why/ Why not? ______

32. What is your opinion about ‘Barangaroo’ (i.e. the new proposed development being built on the Western side of Millers and Dawes Point, also known as ‘The Hungry Mile’)? ______

33. How satisfied are you with the government’s planning with the area? Not Satisfied Extremely Satisfied 1 2 3 4 5

34. If you are not extremely satisfied, please say why. ______

35. Based on the local planning of your neighbourhood, who do you think your neighbourhood is designed for? (please tick as many boxes as you wish) □ Local residents □ City workers □ Local visitors □ Overseas tourists □ Other:______

36. From the list below, what would you like to see improved for your suburb? (please tick as many boxes as you wish) □ Public transport service □ Local health services □ Shopping and commercial facilities □ Opportunities and facilities for □ Amount and quality of housing children and young people □ Availability of jobs □ Quality of environment □ Local amenities, parks and leisure □ Schools facilities □ Nothing, it’s already fine! □ Other:______

37. If you have been living in the area for longer than 5 years, how do you feel about the changes your neighbourhood has experienced over time? (please tick) □ Area has improved □ Area has not changed much □ Area has worsened □ Have lived here less than 5 years

354

□ Other: ______

38. How has your neighbourhood changed or not changed? ______

39. Overall how satisfied are you about living in your neighbourhood? (please circle) Not Satisfied Extremely Satisfied 1 2 3 4 5

40. Please add any other comments about your suburb that you would like us to know about. ______

A selection of your photos will be collated into a short book showcasing the distinctiveness of your suburb.

If you would like to be part of this exciting opportunity, or participate in a follow-up interview, please leave your details below. Please remember that all information is purely confidential.

Name:______Mobile Number:______Email Address:______

Thank you for your time and cooperation in completing this survey.

355

APPENDIX VII: Community Eyes booklet

356

357

Welcome! Join us on a photographical tour through Sydney's own urban village: Millers and Dawes Points. This booklet arose from a question I posed to residents over the course of my doctoral research at The University of New South Wales: "What makes Millers and Dawes Points a unique and special place?" To make this enquiry interactive, I asked residents to answer this question by photographing their favourite aspects of these localities. Residents responded with a surprisingly large variety of photographs for two relatively small suburbs. Through these photographs, residents explained why they enjoy living in Millers and Dawes Points.

This booklet will introduce you to the picturesque suburbs of Millers and Dawes Points through the eyes of the residents, who know these places best. The images provide remarkable insights into the history, community, lifestyle and architecture that when combined present Millers and Dawes Points as unique and special places.

An online version of the Millers and Dawes Points' Community Eyes Project is available on

Facebook ®. I would like to thank the City of Sydney Council for their contribution to the Community Eyes Project. I would also like to thank Millers and Dawes Points' residents who generously donated their time and creativity for the Project.

Helen Karathomas 2012

358

359

360

361

~ "I love the history and old-worldness of Millers Point. which includes the wonderful ~ Observatory Hill. The area has a lovely - atmosphere and the access to facilities ,. is great. I can walk down to the Opera n House. the Dendy cinema and to the 0 main shopping centre. Millers Point has a mixture of old and new. I can catch a n ferry on a lovely sunny day which is so old z Sydney." I "The architecture of this area adds to the ,. charm and character of the place. I just II) hope we can keep it as such."

362

363

364

365

"The water makes Millers and Dawes Points special. The water views are sensational. You see the Harbour change every day and it's just fantastic. To see people climbing the Harbour Bridge, to see the water ferries- it's just beautiful to live by the ferries. You couldn't ask for a better place to live really."

366

367

"The history of the area and the mixed people makes Millers Point really spe Especially all the old people that have lived here a long time. Millers Point is~ nice everywhere you look. The buildings, harbour. Opera House and the Sydney Harbour Bridge are amazing."

368

369

370

371

I love living here in Millers Point because it provides a very "old world" village I. counterpoint to the hustle and bustle of the Sydney CBD - whilst all being in •.,.Ul walking distance to work and leisure. The 1ft suburb rustles with history on every corner :a and it's all the small things that speak ,.. volumes about the evolution of this city, from its colonial roots. to grand terrace houses. the maritime heritage to winsome I drinking holes. It is a truly unique part of Sydney.

372

373

"Millers Point is a fabulous place to live because you can do everything. It's so central. You can exercise just by walking around and you can ride your bike around safely or go swimming in the pool. I just find it's a really healthy place to live. We love going to the pubs. theatres and concerts. I reckon it's a fabulous lifestyle." ~ ~, ,p q,... 2?q~ ::f/~q~~ 'Yt14ce fo five

374

375

., z -r- .,r- "The architecture in Millers Point is very - significant. This photo has an 1870s building. It's very old for our country. ~ The building has big open hallways with ~ generous spaces. The architecture is really z fantastic." ,.. ::a ... architecture,, is a vety s!Jnifcant.,

376

377

378

379

''What we like about living in Millers Point is that it is the oldest suburb in Sydney and there is still that feeling of community where we live. We have come to know so many of the long-term residents here in Lower Fort Street as well as meeting the newcomers who have moved into the new developments. So it's a really nice mixture of residents and we've embraced that feel."

380

381

382

383

"From my I am lucky out over the most buildngs from the very beginnings of the establishment of the colony, so I Uve as a part of living history." - Bz

384

385

386

387

388

389

390

391

..m (I) ...m "I think the old buildings are beautiful. The ~ trees that surround them are lovely. The transition to the harbour is really attractive. The accessibility to so many other things ~ make Millers Point quite valuable. but I c wonder about its future." a

392

... which affthese seem to 6fencfweff with the area without compromisi11j its character... ·~~·· ~VJ ~~ (;)~ ... a fhriviYJ_J ani ec ~&c~e

...the ~ were horn in the house tli~

393

394

APPENDIX IX: Community Eyes’ guide

‘Community Eyes’ Guide

You are invited to participate in an exciting project called ‘Community Eyes’. Your task is to use your camera to answer the following question:

“What makes your suburb a unique and special place?”

Once your photos have been developed, you will be interviewed about the photographs you have taken. A selection of your photos will be collated into a short book showcasing the distinctiveness of your suburb.

To assist you in your task, please consider the following points:  You are welcome to exercise your creative side when taking your photographs. There is no right or wrong way to answer the question.

 While disposable cameras are happily provided, they are no match for the quality of digital cameras. It is highly recommended that you use a digital camera if you have access to one.

Please endeavour to complete the photos within two weeks.

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me (Helen Karathomas) on ph: 0415 118 504 or email: [email protected]

Please remember that all information is purely confidential. Your personal information will never be distributed to third parties. However, acknowledgement as a photographer is assured if you prefer.

Thank you for participating in this exercise and I look forward to viewing your pictures soon.

395

APPENDIX X: Participant observation notes

Notes taken after conducting in-depth interviews with residents. Both interviews were conducted within the residents own home.

Observations during interview with Respondent #12 of the traditional community: - Worn furniture. - Water stains on ceiling and walls. - House in need of basic repairs. For example, painting required in some rooms and leaking tap. - Resident pointed out to me other items in the home that were neglected by their housing authority. - Accessible letterbox located outside of their dwelling.

Observations during interview with Respondent #21 of the new community: - Three bedroom apartment on 16th floor of apartment building. - I was greeted by a concierge when entering the apartment building. - Apartment has 180˚ views of the Sydney Opera House, Sydney Harbour Bridge and the suburb of Pyrmont. - House is equipped “modern” and well kept furniture and other furnishings. - Large screen television set with surround sound speaker system. - Bathroom made out of “luxury” materials such as marble. - Expensive light fixtures installed. - Large framed artworks hanging on walls - Letterbox not accessible.

396

APPENDIX XI: Survey code descriptions for data entry

Codes listed here do not include the suggestions originally provided on survey.

Question 1 Codes: What is your occupation?

Code for Category Analysis 1 Retired/Pensioner 2 Management Occupations 3 Business and Financial Operations Occupations 4 Computer and Mathematical Occupations 5 Architecture and Engineering Occupations 6 Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations 8 Legal Occupations 9 Education, Training, and Library Occupations 10 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations 11 Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations 13 Protective Service Occupations 14 Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations 15 Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations 17 Sales and Related Occupations 18 Office and Administrative Support Occupations 19 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations 20 Construction and Extraction Occupations 22 Production Occupations 23 Transportation and Material Moving Occupations 24 Military Specific Occupations 25 Students 26 Unemployed 27 Domestic Duties 88 Other 99 Not Answered

Question 2 Codes: What is your country of birth?

Code for Analysis Category 1 North and South America 2 Asia 3 Europe 4 Australia 5 New Zealand 6 Africa 88 Other 99 Not Answered

397

Question 3 Codes: Do you own or rent your premises?

Code for Analysis Category 1 Own 2 Rent 99 Not Answered

Question 4 Codes: How long have you lived in Millers Point/Dawes Point?

Code for Analysis Category 1 0-6 months 2 6 months – 1 year 3 1 year – 3 years 4 3 years – 5 years 5 5 years – 10 years 6 10 years and upwards 99 Not Answered

Question 5 Codes: How long do you intend to reside in your premises?

Code for Analysis Category 1 0- 6 months 2 6 months – 1 year 3 1 year – 5 years 4 5 years – 10 years 5 10 years and upwards 6 Indefinitely 7 Do not know 99 Not Answered

Question 6 Codes: Where did you live before moving to Millers Point/Dawes Point?

Code for Analysis Category 100 Ashfield Council 101 Botany Bay City Council 102 Burwood Council 103 City of Canada Bay Council 104 Canterbury City Council 106 Hurstville City Council 110 Manly Council 113 North Sydney Council 114 Randwick City Council 115 Rockdale City Council 116 Strathfield Municipal Council 117 Council of the City of Sydney 118 Waverley Council 119 Willoughby City Council 120 Woollahra Municipal Council 122 Leichhardt Municipal Council 398

127 Mosman Council 130 Lane Cove Municipal Council 2 Outer Sydney 3 Rest of NSW 4 Rest of Australia 5 Europe 6 United States of America 7 Asia 88 Other 99 Not Answered

Diagrammatical representation of Inner Sydney:

Figure has been removed due to Copyright restrictions

Source: Department of Premier and Cabinet. 2010, Local Council Boundaries: Sydney inner (SI), accessed 26 March 2010, http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/dlg_regions.asp?mi=0&ml=8®ion=SI®ionty pe=1.

Diagrammatical representation of Outer Sydney:

Figure has been removed due to Copyright restrictions

Source: Department of Premier and Cabinet. 2010, Local Council Boundaries: Sydney outer (SO), accessed 26 March 2010, http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/dlg_regions.asp?mi=0&ml=8®ion=SI®ionty pe=1.

Diagrammatical representation of Rest of New South Wales (Excludes ‘Inner Sydney’ and ‘Outer Sydney’):

Figure has been removed due to Copyright restrictions

Source: Department of Premier and Cabinet. 2010, Local Council Boundaries, accessed 26 March 2010, http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/dlg_regions.asp?mi=0&ml=8®iontype=0.

Question 7 Codes: Why do you live here?

Alternate Resident Code for Category Response/ Further Analysis Description 14 Views - Water views 15 Social Housing 88 Other 99 Not Answered

399

Question 11 Codes: If you do NOT feel ‘Extremely Safe’, please describe which features of your neighbourhood concern you.

Code for Alternate Resident Category Analysis Description 1 Alcohol and Drugs 2 Youth - And their behaviour - Youth in gangs 3 Reckless Drivers 4 Night Time - Pubs - Lack of lighting - Saturday night hooligans 5 Social Housing Residents and Areas 6 Crime 7 Homeless 8 Visitors - Drunken visitors - Foreigners - Tourists 9 Kent Street 10 Underpass 88 Other 99 Not Answered

Question 12 Codes: How would you describe the character of Millers Point/ Dawes Point?

Code for Category Itemisation Analysis 1 Positive Attributes - Community Connectedness - Overall Satisfaction - Quiet - Diverse - Interesting - Improvement 2 Negative attributes - Deteriorating - Overall dissatisfaction 3 Attributes of change - Historical - Higher socio-economic demographic entering area 88 Other 99 Not Answered

Question 12 Itemisation Codes: How would you describe the character of Millers Point/ Dawes Point?

Code for Category Alternate Resident Description Analysis 1 Community Connectedness - Warm

400

- Friendly - Neighbourly - Family - Close knit - Residential 2 Overall Satisfaction - Good - Nice - Very good - Excellent - Normal - Exciting 3 Historical - Old neighbourhood - Heritage buildings - Quaint - Traditional 4 Deteriorating - In decline - Over run by wealthy residents - Dying - Decrepit - Dilapidated - Decaying - Run down 5 Quiet - Relaxed - Calm - Peaceful - Subdued - Sleepy 6 Overall Dissatisfaction - Unsavoury - Characterless - Ugly - Run down - Depressing - Dull 7 Diverse - Varying social classes - Mixed population - Old and new - Eclectic mix 8 Interesting - Unique 9 Improvement - Changing for the better - Improving 10 Higher Socio-Economic - Emergent middle upper class Demographic - Cultured - Conservative middle class - Interested in cultural activities - High classed 88 Other 99 Not Answered

401

Question 13 Codes: How do you think Walsh Bay’s character differs from Millers Point’s character? OR How do you think Millers Point’s character differs from Walsh Bay’s character?

Code for Category Alternate Resident Description Analysis 1 Millers Point (MP) Older vs. - MP more heritage Walsh Bay (WB) Newer - MP more established - MP more historic - Old vs. new - Traditional vs. modern - Old buildings vs. new developments - Old people vs. young people - WB more trendy 2 Millers Point (MP) poorer - WB more upmarket residents vs. Walsh Bay - MP working class vs. WB white collar (WB) wealthier residents - Rich yuppies vs. working class Australians - WB gentrified poshness. 3 Walsh Bay (WB) more - More facilities (esp. in service sector) cultural space - More restaurants - More shops - Contains theatre 4 Don’t know - Not sure 5 Millers Point (MP) vs. Walsh - WB residents hide behind closed doors Bay (WB) gated community - WB is exclusive - WB is an enclave - WB residents don’t mix - MP more residential feel - MP village atmosphere 6 Millers Point (MP) more - MP has an atmosphere character vs. Walsh Bay - MP more established (WB) less character 7 Slight difference between - Similar areas areas - No difference 88 Other 99 Not Answered

Question 14 Codes: How would you describe the character of The Rocks?

Code for Category Alternate Resident Description Analysis 1 Positive Attributes - Interesting - Overall Satisfaction - Diverse - Vibrant 2 Negative attributes - Overall Dissatisfaction - Losing Character 3 Attributes of change - Tourist Precinct

402

- Commercialised - Historical 88 Other 99 Not Answered

Question 14 Itemisation Codes: How would you describe the character of The Rocks?

Code for Category Alternate Resident Description Analysis 1 Tourist Precinct 2 Interesting 3 Overall Satisfaction - Special - Wonderful - Great atmosphere - Attractive - Fun - Appealing - Fun - Unique 4 Overall Dissatisfaction - Gritty - Clichéd - Overrated - Dirty - Tacky - Untidy - Nothing special - Confused 5 Expensive - Up market - Rip off - Classy - Sophisticated 6 Commercialised - Business orientated - Shopping - Markets - Festivals 7 Historical - Old - Quaint - Age old - Rustic - Old people - Heritage 8 Diverse - Mixed - Varied due to social housing - Combination of working/welfare class - Mix of residential and commercial - Eclectic - Old and modern 9 Vibrant - Exciting

403

10 Losing Character - No character - Deteriorating - Character threatened 88 Other 99 Not Answered

Question 16 Codes: Do you have concerns about the future character of your suburb? If ‘Yes’, what concerns?

Code for Category Alternate Resident Description Analysis 1 Social Housing Sell Off - Losing public housing - Social housing maintenance 2 Losing Character - Making it a wealthy area - Losing heritage characteristics - Making the area too commercial - Change atmosphere - Changing character - Gentrification - Losing the current socio-economic mix of people - Losing diversity 3 Barangaroo - Barangaroo building heights - Barangaroo increasing volume of people - Barangaroo increasing traffic - Construction noise issues 4 Overdevelopment - New developments - Developments - Overcrowding - Americanisation 5 Poor Planning - Managing growth - Cycle ways (in construction) - Proposed skate park - Noise - Increased traffic - Limited parking availability - Transport 6 Social Housing - Social housing tenants - Social housing tenants lack of property maintenance - Social mixing issues - Allowing social housing tenants living on prime real estate 7 Alcohol and Crime - Drunks - Evening venues 88 Other 99 Not Answered

404

Question 17 Codes: Do any of these issues bother you in your neighbourhood?

Alternate Resident Code for Analysis Category Description 13 Drugs and alcohol 88 Other 99 Not Answered

Question 18 Codes: How would you describe the community atmosphere in Millers Point/Walsh Bay?

Code for Category Alternate Resident Description Analysis 1 Positive Attributes - Community connectedness - Overall satisfaction - Diverse - Quiet - Improving 2 Negative attributes - Deteriorating - No community atmosphere - Polarised 88 Other 99 Not Answered

Question 18 Itemisation Codes: How would you describe the community atmosphere in Millers Point/Walsh Bay?

Code for Category Alternate Resident Description Analysis 1 Community Connectedness - Warm - Friendly - Neighbourly - Family - Close knit - Residential - Congenial - Supportive 2 Overall Satisfaction - Good - Nice - Very good - Excellent - Normal - Exciting - Fun - Cooperative - Love it 3 Deteriorating - In decline - Over run by wealthy residents

405

- Dying - Decaying - Waiting to be sold out 4 No Community Atmosphere - Little community atmosphere - Non- existent - Private - Insular - Closed 5 Diverse - Varying social classes - Mixed population - Old and new - Eclectic - Multicultural - Couples and singles - Diverse economically 6 Quiet - Relaxed - Calm - Peaceful - Subdued - Sleepy 7 Improving - Growing stronger - Getting there - Improving 8 Polarised - Binary - Fragmented - Disconnected - Incompatible residents - Divided 88 Other 99 Not Answered

Question 24 Codes: Private dwelling residents: Do you think public housing residents cause concerns for the local community? If you have concerns please describe them.

Social housing residents: Are you aware of any concerns private householders might have about local public housing residents? If ‘yes’, please describe them.

Code for Category Alternate Resident Description Analysis 1 Youth - Anti social youths who engage in gang- like behaviour - Youths engaging in antisocial behaviour 2 Crime - Vandalism - Graffiti - Fear for personal safety - Domestic violence 3 Anti- social behaviour - Noisy residents - Ill-mannered - No rules to abide by

406

- Begging for money - Little respect for other residents - Loitering 4 Alcohol and drugs 5 No concerns - Unaware of concerns 6 Poor opinion of social - Dirty housing residents - They think we are fleas - Uncouth - Untidy 7 Concerns for property - Abuse of property maintenance of social - Rubbish left outside their property housing estates - No pride in their homes 8 Devalue local property values 88 Other 99 Not Answered Question 25 Codes: What are your opinions about the recent sale of Housing NSW (public housing) terrace homes?

Code for Category Alternate Resident Description Analysis 1 Opposed to sell off - Ridiculous - Disappointing - Despicable - Disgusted Understands (yet suspicious of 2 government motivations) 3 Supports sell off 4 No Opinion - Don’t know - None 5 Inevitable - It had to happen - Bound to happen 6 Sympathetic - Feel sorry - Regrettable - Area will lose character and tradition 88 Other 99 Not Answered

Question 27 Codes: Do you think Millers Point and Walsh Bay would benefit from more public housing? Why in what ways?

Code for Category Alternate Resident Description Analysis 1 Yes, due to benefits of - Keeps area affordable social mixing - Keeps diversity in the area - Avoids mono-culture - Better integration between lower,

407

middle and upper class - Adds character and different perspectives to the area - Prevents marginalisation 2 No, based on feasibility - Where would you put more housing - The government could not afford it - Money needs to be spent on improving properties 3 No, there is already enough social housing 4 No, based on negative - Some social housing tenants can be opinions/attributes of annoying social housing residents - They don’t deserve it 5 No, more social housing - They don’t look after their properties tenants will degrade area - More social housing will reduce property values 6 No, based on negative - Would polarise community attributes of social mixing - They don’t belong in a gentrifying community - Too many poor people will enter community - Bringing more rich people into the area will be beneficial - Social housing is the majority and selling them off would encourage more diversity 88 Other 99 Not Answered

Question 32 Codes: Do you think the Walsh Bay Developments (the finger wharves) have been a positive influence for Millers and Dawes Point? Why/ Why not?

Code for Category Alternate Resident Description Analysis 1 Negative impact - Destroyed the heritage - Dislikes design - Overdeveloped - Overpopulated 2 Introduced wealth into the - Introduced wealthy people area - Introduced more money - Increased economic activity 3 Revitalisation of the area - Opened the space up - Physical aspects - Community aspects - More shopping facilities - Cultural revitalisation - Entertainment revitalisation 4 Class distinction creating a - Not concerned with the rest of the binary community

408

- Gated area - Too wealthy and doesn’t fit in with the rest of the neighbourhood - No mixing - Different demographic to original occupants 88 Other 99 Not Answered

Question 33 Codes: What is your opinion about ‘Barangaroo’ (i.e. the new proposed development being built on the Western side of Millers and Dawes Point, also known as the ‘The Hungry Mile’)?

Code for Category Alternate Resident Description Analysis 1 Positive Attributes Negative Attributes - More pollution - More traffic - Increased population 2 - Dislike design (especially the proposed hotel) - Too big - Overdevelopment No Opinion - Don’t know 3 - Too early to tell - Not sure 4 Some Concerns Positive Attributes with - 50/50 6 Concerns 88 Other 99 Not Answered

Question 35 Codes: How satisfied are you with the government’s planning with the area? If you are not extremely satisfied, please say why.

Code for Category Alternate Resident Description Analysis - Corruption - Underhand planning - Government can’t be trusted Based on political 1 - Government not concerned with the locals interests - No consideration for residents - Interested in short sighted profits - All about politics and the next election 2 Social Housing Sell Off 3 Barangaroo - Loss of views from development Lack of Local - Lack of transparency 4 Community - Dictatorial Consultation

409

- Over crowdedness 5 Overdevelopment - New developments - Cycle ways - Traffic 6 Transport Issues - Traffic congestion - No ferry service - Government incompetence - Lack of coordination in planning - Stagnant and unproductive planning - Plans to keep changing and nothing is 7 General Poor Planning happening - Poor design - Slow to change things - Somewhat disconnected and slow 88 Other 99 Not Answered

Question 37 Codes: From the list below, what would you like to see improved for your suburb?

Code for Category Alternate Resident Description Analysis 11 Post Office 88 Other 99 Not Answered

Question 39 Codes: If you have been living in the area for longer than 5 years, how do you feel about the changes your neighbourhood has experienced over time? How has your neighbourhood changed or not changed?

Code for Category Alternate Resident Description Analysis Original community fading - Community deterioration 1 away - Area losing character Influx of new and wealthy - Introduction of wealth into area 2 residents - Increased shops - Increased infrastructure Area has been revitalised - Architecture revitalisation 3 (positive stance) - Increased culture - Increased housing - Increased amounts of people Introduction of new - Too much development 4 developments (negative stance) 5 Class distinction 6 No change - Little change 88 Other 99 Not Answered

410

APPENDIX XII: General Millers and Dawes Points’ resident in-depth interview questions

1) Draw a map of Millers and Dawes Points a) Outside Millers and Dawes Points boundary: Do you still consider this part of Sydney as your suburb? 2) How long have you lived in the area? 3) How did you come to live here? a) Do you have any plans to leave? 4) What attracted you to live in Millers and Dawes Points? 5) What is it like living here? a) How would you describe the lifestyle? Does it suit your lifestyle? b) What are your opinions of Millers and Dawes Points? i) Is it a nice place to live? Do you enjoy living here? How connected do you feel to the area? 6) How would you describe the character of Millers and Dawes Points? a) Has this character changed over time? How? i) Has anything else changed over time? b) Does it differ for Millers Point/Dawes Point? 7) How would you describe the people that come to the area? (for example, are they mostly tourists or locals) a) Are you happy with this? b) How would you describe the people that live in Millers Point/Dawes Point? c) Does this differ to those that live within Dawes Point/Millers Point? 8) Is there strong community cohesion amongst residents? Why/why not? a) Do you feel connected to your neighbours? b) Do you feel connected to the wider community? 9) Do you have an opinion about the sell off of public housing in the area? a) Why is it a good/bad idea? i) How do you think it will affect the area? b) Those that are opposed to the leases say that the poor are being moved out of the area. Do you think that is problematic for Millers and Dawes Points? i) Is social mix good for the area? c) When the 99-year leases are up, what would you like to see happen to the properties?

411

d) What do you think the wider community thinks about the sell offs? e) Why do you think Housing NSW is selling of its assets? 10) Do you like the name ‘Barangaroo’? a) What is your opinion about ‘Barangaroo’ (the new proposed development being built on the Western side of Millers Point)? b) Have you viewed the plans? Did you attend the exhibition at The Hungry Mile (Hickson Rd)? Have you been attending the Barangaroo Forums in the city? c) How do you think Barangaroo might affect the local community and character of the area? i) Do you see the development as an intrusion on your suburb? ii) Are you concerned with issues such as traffic and property prices? d) Have you been pleased with the level of community consultation offered by the government? e) How would you like to see Barangaroo be built? What is your ideal vision for the area? f) Are you pleased with their plans to move the cruise terminal out to White Bay? 11) How do you feel about the high rises in the area? a) Do you think this sort of high rise belongs in Millers and Dawes Points? b) Would you be concerned if more high rises were built in the area? 12) Is the history of the area important to Millers and Dawes Points’ identity? How? a) And the historical aspects, is it important for the area too? b) Why is it important to retain them? c) Do you think they add character to the area? 13) Do you visit the Walsh Bay precinct much? a) For entertainment or restaurants? Both? 14) Do you attend any of the local pubs? a) Any favourite ones? Why do you like them? b) Are there any pubs you wouldn’t go to? 15) Do you fear for your personal safety in the area? a) Do the homeless bother you? 16) Have you experienced any social problems within the area? a) What are they? b) Are tourists a problem? 412

17) Do you use public transport much? 18) Overall, do you think Millers and Dawes Points are vastly different? a) In what way? (Is there a social, economic or cultural divide) b) Is there division within Millers and Dawes Points itself? c) Do residents from different areas interact with each other? 19) Do you feel your area could be improved? If so, how? a) Are there certain services the area is missing? 20) What would influence your decision to move out of the area (if any)? 21) What do you think makes your suburb so unique and special? 22) Is there anything else you would like to add?

413