Hi, I hope it's not a problem if I ask this here.

I've been working away on a PhD on Port Melbourne. Perce White Reserve is at the far end of the beach, near the port. My understanding is it is a bit of a beat. There's an active 'friends' group (who mostly do weeding to protect some rare local grasses).

It surprised me to see that with the recent Victorian Govt announcement of Webb Dock becoming a container port, there was talk of doing work on Perce White Reserve. The 'design concept' includes adding a concrete path and says something about making it 'family friendly'.

I don't think the area is un-friendly for families, and perhaps I'm making an issue out of nothing, but I wonder if anybody cares.
(My post here isn't part of my 'data collection' or anything. I just thought it would be interesting to do some reality testing before I get into some analysis of what I do know about the area.)

The only time I've been down that way was for a Bday party which occurred around the BBQs and involved guests of all family statusses (somehow I doubt that that is the correct pluralisation).

The broad sand, easy parking, calm waters, paved footpaths and facilities seem to be strongly family-friendly as is. Granted it lacks play equipment painted in bright colours, but this in an of itself doesn't exclude it from use by families.

About the only thing going against it as far as I can see is that it is fairly isolated from places that families would be expected to actually live. The wall of Docklands-esque mulit-use apartment buildings and heritage-wantabe new construction seem to cater more to single career driven urban folks than to more classic models of the suburban family.

This end-of-the-road location may also be a part of what attracts any kind of beat-activity - when a park is tucked away at the fringes away from other places - such as residences, transport, or shopping - that people would actually WANT to be on a daily basis, they become sink-traps for more -shall we euphamise them - 'niche' behaviours, since casual users and passers-through simply aren't there as they would be on The Tan for example with its runners, botanic garden and shrine traffic, and people walking from parking to St Kilda Rd and CBD areas.

Thanks for the feedback.

It is interesting to see whether, with talk of population growth etc, areas previously 'out of the way' will be seen as 'wasted opportunities'.

I think it is also interesting how people anticipate who will live in places like Docklands. The fact that there are children there, and suddenly they need to go to school etc, has been said to have taken many people (especially those who plan schools) by surprise.

Dear TP student, this post discusses a similar issue.
http://www.samesame.com.au/forum/sho...hlight=bashing
There's a similar problem in choked Sydney where people compete to have private use of public parkland

(I've been re-reading Passages of time: an Australian woman, 1890-1974 by Mary Edgeworth David where she described how her parents viewed any open ground as trouble. She says then as now, unfenced bush is considered by the general public as a dumping place for rubbish…we found a dead horse in Ramsay’s Bush(which is near me). And others said public parks were a temptation for the maids and their men to have sex. And of course The Petersham Standard newspaper of 1893 describes a wilful murder by the mother…a week old baby with its mouth tied found in a cistern under bridge at Booth St Camperdown.)


.

Thanks!
Now that you mention it, I do remember coming across that thread the other year. I suppose people getting bashed is one of the reasons councils, and other groups responsible for public space, are so keen on that 'designing out crime' stuff (although it seems to me like a depressing starting point for thinking about spaces).

That's a good suggestion, I should find out what some of the commentary on Sydney says.

It - increased competition and conflict over the use of public spaces - would almost be a necessary outgrowth of the prevailing Dense-Centre-Less-Sprawl model that is driving Melbourne city planning policy.

Private outdoor space in the form of back yards -once a hallmark of the Aussie lifestyle - have already been drastically sacrificed on most new builds and through the addition of multiple units to existing blocks. There is just less private open space in contemporary residential stock.

In a culture that largely celebrates outdoor living, we are providing ourselves with less and less opportunities to do so on a daily basis which does not include flooding a fixed and -by population - limited number of city parks and reserves.

With increasing numbers of residents lacking even courtyards or balconies, greater demand would be expected to be placed on the council-provided spaces for people to be able to do activities once taken for granted as 'At Home' practices - BBQs, Playspace for children and pets, Recreational sport, having a sunbake, or just stretching your legs.

I don't think it would be hard to immagine that more long-term park users (anti-social or otherwise) would be feeling a bit displaced and perhaps defensive with this influx of new-comers possessing a "This is My Backyard" mindsets.

^
OMG it sounds like Melbourne is choking as much as Sydney is!

Sydney is being filled with high-rises which look like rabbit-hutches or kennels. They certainly fullfil Corbusier's notion of Machines for Living In

There is increasing density, but we still see plenty of green field development growing Melbourne. The current state government has announced a massive brownfield residential high-density development for the industrial part of Port Melbourne (although I wouldn't hold my breath on that one). One of the amusing pop-statistics in Port Melbourne is that it has only recently returned to his peak population, but this was only achieved with a large amount of redevelopment. Those 'working class areas' had a high population density (and according one of my friends who has done some research, provided very profitable real estate), but just with more people living in each square meter of housing. It seems like space for living continues to be something only certain people can afford.

I think people love talking about 'green open space' with a sense of moral wholesomeness. I must say I think 'open space' does make a suburb more pleasant. However, it is probably called this to mark it off from 'vacant space' -- a location for problems. Passages of time sounds really interesting. There are still people who talk about 'defensible space' (i.e. if land does not 'belong' to somebody we will have not just some sort of 'tragedy of the commons' but rather dangerous anti-social moral decay).

I also love the contradiction between the sense that we need to plan 'family friendly' spaces or terrible things will happen, but at the same time people take issue with Docklands because they see it as not having enough 'character'/ organic self definition through its spaces being co-opted. Still, I do not really have a clue what is actually going on, so that's just what I think.

In terms of terrible "things will happen" unless specific 'family friendly' spaces [and WHO in the family other than the 5-yr-old do these FAMILY spaces really appeal to] are the majority: I don't think it would be a far stretch to conclude that housing stock is prohibitively expensive for many young people. This has both kept young people living in their parent’s homes for extended periods and fuelled a highly competitive rental market in many cases dominated by house-share arrangements.

In either of these situations, one doesn't really have privacy even at 'home', and perhaps "guests" could be an imposition on that dynamic and the space-needs of other residents. Thus it could seem plausible that seeking sexual activity away from the home would be quite attractive for some people.

Said one European City official: "I only took account of reality, instead of ignoring it. This idea was born of a civic sense. Administrators have to cater to the needs of the people, and for young people here, having a place where they can be intimate is a genuine need."


How does this dynamic play out in other densely populated locations:

NETHERLANDS

http://www.nisnews.nl/public/080308_2.htm

LECD is now calling on Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht to tolerate 'cruising' gays in all their parks. . . the police institute says that by regulating sex in public, the safety of homosexuals from 'queer-bashers' can be better guaranteed.

"Cruising is something belonging to all time and banning it does not work anyway. They do it surreptitiously and mostly without others being annoyed by it. But homos at cruising spots are often attacked. By now agreeing rules of behaviour on this, safety can be increased," according to COC Amsterdam chairman Dennis Boutkan.

The recommendations that "officers must not disturb the activities, as long as they do not cause any actual nuisance" and they would "only have to take corrective action if there is a question of actual offensive behaviour that is visible from the public path."


http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/arc...8/mar/08031409

Frequented by families and tourists, the Vondelpark features ponds, children’s playgrounds, an open air theater with free performances, and woodsy areas where authorities say that couples of any sexual combination will be free to copulate beginning in September of this year.
Local law has long imposed a fine for those caught in such behavior, but under the new law such fines will no longer apply after dark. In addition to restricting public sexual activity to nighttime, the law will also allow police to eject couples who make too much noise. Leaving behind condoms or other trash is also prohibited.

"Why prohibit something that hardly bothers other people and that, to the contrary, gives much pleasure to a particular group?" asked Paul van Grieken, an Amsterdam official.


UNITED KINGDOM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...re/7674874.stm

Police should turn a blind eye to consenting adults in parks and public toilets, a senior officer said. Mr Cunningham said: "In any event it is not for the police to take the role of moral arbiter.


ITALY
http://digitaljournal.com/article/101725
Many young couples in Italy find it hard to find a way to have sex with their partner because the high cost of living forces a lot of them to live with their parents until they actually get married.
Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/101725#ixzz1uKPOqVSv


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-for-love.html

Young adults living at home treat cars as havens of intimacy away from Mamma's prying eyes. . . In an area to be screened by high hedges and equipped with soft lighting, special waste bins and perhaps also condom machines, amorous couples will be given the town council's blessing to enjoy back-seat sex.

According to Vinci's mayor, Giancarlo Faenzi, who says his administration is committed to catering for the needs of the young, Leonardo himself might have welcomed the project.

Back-seat sex is tolerated under Italian law, although in 1999 a court ruled that car windows must be covered up.


http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...x-6294298.html

The practice was initiated in the Sixties. . . by youngsters who. . . discovered in shuttered cars . . .the only private space for intimacy, far from the small condos saturated with parents, grandparents and siblings.

In Naples of the Eighties: unemployment made it impossible to afford a daytime motel room, and couples felt safer gathering in special places where numbers gave them some protection from robbers.

due to the [recent] economic crisis . . .two-thirds of young people between 18 and 34 years have been forced to stay at home with their parents. . . once again it seems that the only way to enjoy a modicum of privacy is to seal oneself in a car.

Quote:

Originally Posted by longhornie

…This has both kept young people living in their parent’s homes for extended periods …
one doesn't really have privacy even at 'home'
…seeking sexual activity away from the home would be quite attractive for some people.…

Yes indeed. Germaine Greer told the anecdote of English public-housing kids who'd find high-rise lifts to copulate in.

I'm required to do do research in Sydney's public libraries. But over the last decade I have to compete for space with others who use them for flirting, chatting, giggling, eating, drinking and having sleeps there.

.

I also love the contradiction between the sense that we need to plan 'family friendly' spaces or terrible things will happen, but at the same time people take issue with Docklands because they see it as not having enough 'character'/ organic self definition through its spaces being co-opted. Still, I do not really have a clue what is actually going on, so that's just what I think.

I think the problem with targeted ersatz 'Family' [read young children's] spaces are that their uses and times-likely-to-be-used by Families is extremely limited. In so far as the play-day is limited to a portion of the daylight hours, that leaves the majority of the 24-hr day unprogrammed and the highly specialised 'Family Friendly" physical structure of such places precludes other 'legitimate' users from making benefitting from the area. If the play ground is the ONLY egg in that basket, then the space actually represents very limited value to the[rate paying] community at large.

Thus the targeted 'desireables' are limited to parents and children during a limited portion of the daylight hours of days which fall within a fairly limited range of good weather conditions. That would seem to suggest that these spaces have virtually NO value to the targeted intended users during the majority of the time.

Vacuums in time, space, and use attract opportunistic users - unless of course we're talking about docklands which seems to have alienated everyone equally. The 'opportunists' often equate to the perceived 'terrible things' and generally involve recreational pursuits not intended for the 5-yr-old.

In a perfect world scenario - Pt Melb beach would have a DIRECT and OBVIOUS pedestrian and cycle and perhaps transport connection to the city via Southbank and/or Docklands, becoming a bit of a flow-through space linking City, Pt Melbourne, St Kilda.

Now that the proposal for a Ferry Terminal at Docklands is gaining attention again, that might give a bit of 'Purpose' to DL that being the back-lot of the Staduim and Train Station simply does not.

Anyone who believes that Fake Hollywood Stars, Melted London Eye knock-off, and Ice-Skating Yurt are enough to draw activity is kidding themselves. DL will continue to be a forgotten and cut-off corner until theres REAL day-to-day traffic through the space that people would be engaging in regardless of where it is located -

Ferry transport is something that would offer this since it is something useful to day-to-day activity and which doesn't exist in any form anywhere else in the city. Close to the regional, city, and interstate train station and Airport Shuttle Bus hub will only enhance this function.

As a catalyst this can promote better connections to adjacent areas and also put more demands for and on outdoor public spaces.

There's not a bad link down along the tram line from South Bank. However, a more direct Docklands link currently involves navigating that car park at the back of DFO.

One of the consultation events I went along to in Port Melbourne was for a bit of public space fenced off from a busy road. It was interesting that nearby neighbours suggested it should be 'done up' to appeal to teenagers (I think around 14 years) as children already have places to go. In some other suburbs I have usually heard a focus on trying to avoid having 'young people' hang around (& I wonder if this was the motivation for Docklands allowing bike riding but not skate boarding along the water).

So many things to think about!