Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Sa toolkit ppt
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Sa toolkit ppt

142
views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Real Estate

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
142
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Activity Centre Performance Measurement Toolkit PCA „Making Density Work‟ Forum
  • 2. Do you enjoy centres like this?
  • 3. Or this?
  • 4. Question: How do we plan for vibrant centres that are not all competing for the same diminishing retail catchment?
  • 5. 7.75 6.80 6.50 7.00 7.01 7.40 6.30 8.10 8.30 7.50 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Hutt St, Adelaide
  • 6. Toolkit  Developed to assist planning move away from retail floorspace caps ActivityCentre PerformanceToolkit  Metrics form part of WA State Planning Policy Activity Centres for Perth & Peel  Used by local government for Local Commercial and Activity Centre Strategies (LCACS)  Used by centre owners to obtain approval for redevelopment/expansion – but also seeing commercial benefits
  • 7. Hutt Street, Adelaide Economic Sustainability: 7.01 out of 10 Urban Form: 7.50 out of 10
  • 8. Activity Intensity Metrics:  Residential density  Employment density 6.80 4.80 6.20 7.70 7.60 6.80 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Average Mainstreet Claremont Balmain Fitzroy Subiaco Hutt St Intensity
  • 9. Activity Diversity 7.75 6.25 8.00 7.30 7.90 7.75 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Average Mainstreet Claremont Balmain Fitzroy Subiaco Hutt St Diversity
  • 10. Employment 6.75 5.50 6.75 7.75 9.50 6.50 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Average Mainstreet Claremont Balmain Fitzroy Subiaco Hutt St Employment
  • 11. Accessibility 8.25 7.25 6.50 8.25 8.25 7.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Average Mainstreet Claremont Balmain Fitzroy Subiaco Hutt St Accessibility
  • 12. Urban Quality 5.83 8.30 7.20 5.80 7.40 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Average Mainstreet Claremont Balmain Subiaco Hutt St Quality
  • 13. Urban Amenity 7.19 6.70 6.60 8.30 6.30 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Average Mainstreet Claremont Balmain Subiaco Hutt St Amenity
  • 14. Mobility 7.86 7.50 8.10 6.90 8.10 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Average Mainstreet Claremont Balmain Subiaco Hutt St Mobility
  • 15. Safety 7.34 8.50 8.30 7.40 8.30 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Average Mainstreet Claremont Balmain Subiaco Hutt St Safety
  • 16. 5.95 6.86 8.31 7.01 7.75 7.55 7.10 7.50 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Claremont Balmain Subiaco Hutt St Economic Urban Form
  • 17. Why are these metrics useful?  Economic metrics relate to the number and diversity of users, and their ability to utilise the centre  Urban form metrics relate to attractiveness of centre to users - visitors, residents or businesses
  • 18. „Place Counts‟ Mobile App
  • 19. Method of Use 1. Count physical features (using toolkit metrics) 2. Assess user feelings about place (using iPad/iPhone) 3. Analyse how well public feeling correlates with investment in physical features 4. Plan and make changes to physical environment to maximise benefit to the public 5. Collect user feedback again to verify the benefits of the changes
  • 20. Quality Dimension Mobility Dimension Safety Dimension
  • 21. Benefits  Continuous source of user feedback  Direct public input rather than use of “experts”  Cheaper than intercept surveys  Matches physical investment with public experience Investment in CCTV  Feeling of Safety Investment in awnings  Feeling of Comfort Investment in bike paths  Feeling of Convenience Q $ Return on Investment
  • 22. Common goal of successful centres  Centres are more sustainable, active and utilised, and therefore more successful  Greater commercial revenue, better places, greater labour productivity, uplift in property values, greater employment self-sufficiency  More efficient and effective urban form  Goal shared by all of us
  • 23. Who Problem Solution Everyone Decision-making without an evidence base Create a database of centre assessments using a consistent set of metrics Aspire to be like successful example centres but not sure how Learn lessons and implement actions from other cities and centres through national benchmarking Precinct Association Witness the day-to-day issues but lack control over the big picture Get better informed through centre assessment - to take action in areas of control, and influence decision making Centre Owner Need approval to redevelop but don‟t know how to demonstrate wider benefits of the proposal Assess the current centre, and assess how the DA will affect future performance against each metric How can we use this analysis?
  • 24. Who Problem Solution Planning Authority Want to maximise the potential of urban development and infrastructure investment but lack criteria for decision-making Assess the current centre, and assess how the masterplan will affect future performance against each metric Local Government Caught between state government policy and targets, and private sector development pressures. Measure the performance of each centre in the LGA network to determine their role & vision within a Local Activity Centre Strategy State Government Need to focus resources and set sub-regional targets without knowledge of individual centre performance Assess highest performing and most economically valuable centres and fund infrastructure to maximise their wider economic and social impact
  • 25. In Conclusion  Common goal is to create successful, interesting, accessible centres  Different tools and levers available  Common starting point is consistent measurement  Trialling Place Counts – see us after for details