In part 2 of my personal feedback on the  new Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney to 2031 I'm going to look at my concern with the lack of critical engagement in defining appropriate land use policies in the strategy. My concerns are specifically directed at the business park precincts that has come to dominate recent office space development. This form of land use is completely inappropriate and contradictory to many of the other policy goals stated within the Metro Strategy.

Land use patterns are addressed in the policy through a hierarchy of centres and 'special precincts'. I am glad to see a more rigorous approach has been taken to identify a hierarchy of centres within the strategy. However, the use of ‘special precincts’ within the strategy is a bit messy and requires some better structure and consideration.

The concept of precincts is warranted within the strategy. A centres policy alone will not capture all appropriate land uses within a large metropolitan area. Like Harris and Ulman's 1940 Multi Nuclei urban typology models, it is important to understand and describe the clusters of different land uses across a metropolitan area. The city does not simply radiate out from centres, but clusters around specific uses. In 1992 Joel Garreau observed the clustering of uses and the demise of city centres in what he called the ‘edge city’. The edge city is a description of suburban sprawl built on the dominance of the private motor vehicle transportation. It is striking how the land use in these edge cities is at odds with a sustainable strategy we should be taking into the mid-21st century. Research has shown how this suburban typology and motor vehicle infrastructure are leading causes of increasing urban congestion, pollution, environmental damage and poor health outcomes. It is critical for the metropolitan strategy to engage with these land use patterns and address their effects on productivity, sustainability and livability.

In it's draft form the strategy just lists a few special precincts by type and location. I believe the strategy needs to better engage in these land uses and define how they should be associated with the centres strategy and other land uses. In table 1 below I've put together a model that attempts to bring some structure and definition to special precincts. This model describes strategically important precincts and identifies how these precincts will be associated to other strategic centres or land use typologies.

Table 1: Specialised Precinct types

Precinct Type	Precinct	Associated Centre or Land Use
Transport Transport Precincts supports the intermodal change of transport and provide planning outcomes for the delivery of associated land uses	Airport	A town centre with transport infrastructure, hotels, retail Employment lands with, transport, warehousing
	Passenger Rail Terminal	A regional or global city centre with transport infrastructure, hotels, retail, office space, housing, and open space
	Shipping Port	Employment lands with, transport infrastructure and warehousing
Health and Education Health and education precincts provide clustered land use for the delivery of health care or education services. These precincts will be associated with local town centres as described in the centres strategy	Education	A town centre with transport infrastructure, housing, office space, retail, open space
	Healthcare	A town centre with transport infrastructure, housing, office space, retail, open space

 


Noticeably missing from this table is the “Business Park/Office Cluster” precinct used in the draft metro strategy. This land use pattern has been purposefully removed due to it's poor alignment with the fundamental object of the strategy, "a strong global city - a livable local city", and other stated policy objectives. The following table explores how the business park land use pattern contradicts with twenty five other policies stated in the strategy.

Table 2: Misalignment with other strategy objectives

Policy	Alignment	Analysis
1b. Growth will be encouraged within the Metropolitan Urban Area to reflect market demand.	FAIL	Market demand has been skewed out of urban centres towards lower cost  suburban land through poor planning and poor transport infrastructure
1c. Increases in housing and employment will be encouraged in transport accessible centres and where existing infrastructure like schools are underutilised.	FAIL	Business Parks have low public transport patronage making service delivery expensive and economically unviable
1a. Plan for housing growth in centres of all sizes.	FAIL	Business Park zoning has no provision for residential housing
1b. Strategic Centres will be the focus of medium and high density housing and business and commercial growth, with supporting infrastructure.	FAIL	Business Park zoning will only accommodate commercial growth, they provide no provision for housing or social infrastructure. They shift business and commercial activity out of centres onto the suburban fringe.
1c. Encourage growth in all centres and Specialised Precincts within the Global Economic Corridor and extend its overall reach to Norwest and Parramatta.	FAIL	Extending the Global Economic Corridor over a vast spatial area to include suburban business parks will decrease the benefit of agglomeration and spill overs
1d. Mixed use development will be encouraged in all centres, including central commercial core areas, where there is market demand and complementary land uses.	FAIL	The Business Park typology is unable to generate demand for mixed use development or a diversity of land uses
1e. Expand central commercial core areas in Global Sydney and the Regional Cities.	FAIL	Business Parks shift demand out of commercial core areas
1f. Plan commercial cores for Major Centres and Specialised Precincts where there is market demand and investment opportunities.	FAIL	Business Parks will decrease investment and demand in Major Centres
3 a. Strategic Centres and Specialised Precincts will be the focus of improved transport services through cross-city connections.	FAIL	Business Parks have very low public transport usage and contribute negative returns on public investment
7a. Existing centres will grow and change and new centres will be supported.	FAIL	Business Parks reduce demand for growth in centres and counter the development of new centres
7b. Retail, employment, cultural and social infrastructure will be included in centres undergoing growth and renewal.	FAIL	Business Parks have no provision for public space or social infrastructure. The typology is unable to generate the critical mass of pedestrian traffic needed to support other forms of retail, employment, cultural and social infrastructure
7c. New centres will follow principles of good urban design.	FAIL	Business Parks provide poor urban landscapes. By nature of their low density suburban typology that are unable to deliver good urban design outcomes that support social interaction, health and environmental sustainability.
8b. Cultural, social and recreational infrastructure will be delivered across Sydney.	FAIL	Business Parks have no provision for public space or social infrastructure
10f. We will improve public transport connections to key employment areas and encourage more jobs closer to home.	FAIL	Business Parks have very low public transport usage and shift jobs to the urban fringe, making them less accessible to the majority of residents
11b. Strategic Centres, Specialised Precincts and industrial lands will be the prime location for new clusters and agglomeration economies.	FAIL	Business Parks provide poor agglomeration benefits derived from knowledge sharing and idea incubation found in complex urban environs and social interaction
14c. Office-based jobs in Parramatta, Liverpool, Penrith and other centres will increase	FAIL	Business Parks shift demand out of existing centres towards the suburban fringe
18a. Precinct-scale planning will encourage efficient energy, water and resource use.	FAIL	Business Parks have high environmental impacts due to car usage and inefficient built forms
20a. Minimise impacts of climate change in communities.	FAIL	Business Parks have high environmental impacts
20b. Plan for a resilient built environment that can adapt to a changing climate	FAIL	Business Parks are single use precincts that are less adaptable to change and dependent on cheap energy and motor vehicle transportation.
21a. Strategic approaches to reduce exposure to air pollution will inform planning.	FAIL	Business Parks contribute to increased air pollution due to car dependence and increased road congestion
24a. Sydney’s growth will be supported by current and future investment in transport, particularly public transport.	FAIL	Business Parks have very low public transport usage and contribute negative returns on public investment
24b. Demand for car travel will be managed to reduce congestion and infrastructure costs, consistent with the Long Term Transport Master Plan.	FAIL	The Business Parks typology and accessibility constraints encourage increase cars usage across the metropolitan region
24c. Greater use of public transport, walking and cycling will be encouraged.	FAIL	The typology of Business Parks decrease aggregate demand for public and active transport options
26c. Urban design in centres will support sustainable transport choices.	FAIL	Business Parks contribute to increased demand for unsustainable transport choices

Despite being poorly aligned with the strategy, we should also consider other economic, social and environmental outcomes associated with business parks. The outcomes consider how lower rent cost-savings are in fact just cost-shifting, how investment on the suburban fringe is shifting investment out of urban centres, and how urban centres provide a better land use pattern for agglomeration economies.

The movement of capital into business parks can be easily understood as businesses seek lower rent on the suburban fringe. Providing closer proximity to workers and lower land costs, on the surface business parks seem to be an appropriate way to reduce costs and increase productivity. However I argue that the costs savings are actually just cost shifting onto other economic agents, see table 3. These negative externalities have on net disadvantaged for our metropolitan area and actually reduced productivity.

Table 3. Business Park cost shifting to other agents

Agent	Additional Cost
Taxpayers	Delivery of inefficient/underutilised public transport, for example the Epping Chatswood rail link
Transport industries	Increasingly congested road network
Employees	Longer commutes across the city to the suburban fringe
Suppliers	Increase transport costs
Natural environment	Increase air pollution and energy use
Healthcare	Poor health outcomes attributed to sedentary lifestyles

The supply of Business Park office space has also displaced demand for office space within our existing urban centres. This shift in demand has manifest in an under supply and lack of investment in our urban centres. For example we have seen in Sydney’s north demand for new office space in Chatswood has been completely eroded by the supply of office space at Macquarie Park. Also, supply of office space at Norwest has eroded the supply of new office space in urban centres at Mt Druitt, Castle Hill and Parramatta.

It is often strongly argued that business parks on the suburban fringe provide jobs closer to homes and workers, however this is one of the greatest fallacies of all. Moving jobs to the suburban fringe significantly reduces accessibility from many parts of the metropolitan area and reinforces socio-economic inequalities. Office jobs are most accessible when they are located in centralised urban centres and supported by public transport that radiates evenly throughout the metro area. Moving jobs to the suburban fringe increases the dependence on private motor vehicle use and increases road congestion as workers crisscross their way through the metro area to arrive at different suburban locations. Business parks are located close to workers with higher levels of education and wealth, making them less accessible to those living in communities with traditionally lower education levels.  While business parks may benefit a minority of workers, in aggregate these jobs are made less accessible and reinforce social inequalities.

The benefits of urban centres and agglomeration is critically important to delivering productivity gains in our metropolitan area. The growth of the knowledge-intensive activities across all sectors of our economy has seen the rise of a new “idea generating and problem solving class” described by Robert Lucas. This new knowledge worker and knowledge industries can achieve significant productivity gains from agglomeration in urban centres. Jane-Francis Kelly has argued that it is not clear these benefits are realised in suburban Business Parks. The benefits of agglomeration are not just realised from shared infrastructure and economies of scale and scope, but the complex interactions between businesses and social networks. To benefit from these complex networks we must develop highly diverse urban environments that deliver the land use patterns that facilitate complex human interaction and knowledge sharing. The human scale of our rich and complex urban centres are significantly better places to provide this environment than the isolation of car dependant suburban business parks.

The strategy suggests that Business Parks meet the demand of “international companies [that] seek to replicate the business park format of their offices overseas”. While this demand may exist, this does not justify mindlessly following the built form of other cities without considering the context and fundamental objective of our strategy. We have seen how this special precinct fails to meet the policy goals of the strategy. The challenge for this strategy is to develop a policy framework and implantation plan for the removal of business parks from our metropolitan area. This can be done through two strategies; transforming them into mixed use urban centres as outlined in the centres policy, or compulsory acquisition of the land and removal of the business park built form and rezoning for more appropriate land use. The metropolitan strategy should outline preferred solutions for the areas of; Macquarie Park, Norwest, Rhodes, St Leonards, Kogarah, and Sydney Olympic Park.