Revitalising Bakery Hill

About 18 months ago I did a post on how to revitalise Bridge Mall, which was intended mostly as a starting point and contained some pretty modest suggestions. The City of Ballarat recently released their draft Bakery Hill and Bridge Mall Urban Renewal Plan which looks at the Mall itself and the wider Bakery Hill area - and I'm pleased to say they've been much more ambitious than me. However they've let themselves down by including something that would be a real backwards step for the area.

Artist's impression of what Little Bridge Street could look like

First - the good stuff.

It is quite a long-term plan, but they're proposing to completely redevelop the spaces around Bridge Mall - building new medium-density mixed-use development on Little Bridge Street, Curtis Street, and Peel Street. This is exactly what Ballarat needs - commercial space on the ground floor to activate the streets, and residences on top. These residences will be filled with people who don't need to own a car - whether they're heading to work in central Ballarat, to the shops, to socialise, to education, or catching a train to Melbourne, they'll easily be able to get there by walking, cycling or public transport. Having people living here will ensure that there's foot traffic at all hours, which will help the commercial spaces - and with a mixture of general retail, bars and restaurants, and other uses, that should bring even more foot traffic in a virtuous cycle.

Artist's impression of the Curtis Street proposal

In addition to these specific developments, they would also generally encourage more infill development in other parts of the precinct, including shop-top housing on Bridge Mall itself. Together these measures should go a long way towards revitalising the precinct - not to mention making for a much more sustainable urban form. Getting hundreds of people to live here - close to everything, allowing them to get around by active and public transport - reduces the amount of suburban sprawl on Ballarat's fringes. This protects farmland from development for that little bit longer, and means fewer cars driving from those far-flung suburbs into the centre of Ballarat - causing traffic congestion and emissions as they do so.

Suffice to say - I am genuinely very impressed with this aspect of the plan.

Potential redevelopment of Little Bridge carpark, with the Yarrowee in the foreground

Part of the plan is to reconnect with the Yarrowee River, which passes through/under it - Bridge Mall is named after the original Bridge over the Yarrowee, which has since been built over to the extent that you mightn't even know it was there. I've always been fascinated by this, so I think it's very worthwhile - not just because it'll mean some nice open green space, but for the reconnection to both Indigenous and Gold Rush history.

Potential "grand entrance" at the bottom of Victoria Street

Another thing that comes up a lot in the plan is the idea that Ballarat needs a "grand entrance" for people coming into town. The idea is that people will drive into Ballarat via Victoria Street, and then have something signifying the entrance to the city proper. It's an interesting idea, but I'm pretty skeptical.

For one thing, it's a very car-centric perspective - how many visitors are driving to Ballarat, and how many are coming by train? The forecourt of Ballarat station doesn't give the best impression to those visitors, so why not dedicate some resources to improving that instead?

For another - is this "grand entrance" thing something that really matters? Something that will bring visitors to Ballarat? Something that will encourage locals to come into the city more? I'm happy to be corrected, but it's not a phenomenon I've ever seen any evidence for. Broadly speaking, people who are driving tend not to be very engaged with place - regardless of how nice the place is.

Map of existing and proposed "grand entrance"

That said - what they've proposed is not without its charms. This roundabout is currently pretty unwalkable - cars absolutely fly through it - and it seems like this proposal would help that to some extent. Having a decent landmark building here would also present a nice terminating vista - which while it mightn't be a huge drawcard for tourists, would be aesthetically pleasing for those walking or cycling (or driving) into the city from this direction.

The real problem is that the "grand entrance" idea is also being used to justify the truly negative part of the plan - reopening Bridge Mall to cars.

Proposed options for reopening the Mall to traffic

Though they're still putting forward different models for how exactly this would work, they seem pretty committed to doing it. The options include different one-way options, or options that don't allow through-traffic at all - knocking down buildings mid-Mall to allow cars to veer off onto Little Bridge or Curtis Streets - but all of them would see cars returning, sacrificing huge amounts of pedestrian space (and several mature trees) to both driving and parking.

The rationale is that this will increase "movement" in the precinct, increasing shopping and passive surveillance as it does so. But as I said in my previous post, this doesn't really work. Drivers are too cosseted in their protective bubble, and (quite rightly) too focused on the task of driving, to be paying much attention to the streets. Not only do the cars not help, they actively hinder - they tend to deter pedestrians and cyclists, who provide the best passive surveillance and spend the most money.

One rationale that's previously been mentioned for reopening the Mall to traffic is the fact that it's a little too long and thin to work well as a public space. There is some truth to this - as I said last time, passing traffic can only provide passive surveillance at either end, so you're heavily reliant on people being in the Mall itself to provide this. An ideal Mall would be a bit shorter (or have an active street intersecting it) so that passive surveillance could more easily be provided along the whole length.

One proposal to knock down buildings to allow cars in from the north and south

This seemed to me to be an intractable problem - but since they raised the possibility of knocking down buildings to allow cars to turn off, they could consider knocking down some non-heritage buildings mid-Mall to allow for some pedestrian cross-flow (eg for people from the Little Bridge Street development to walk to the station). To me this seems like a very extreme option - a last resort if we find nothing else is working - so I don't think I'd recommend it at this stage. But hey - it's nice to know it's within the Overton window if it comes to it.

The theme that keeps cropping up is that "business as usual is not an option". The Mall is in trouble, and they seem to be at pains to show the traders that they understand this, and that they're taking decisive action. I get the political pressures they're under - they don't just need to take action, they need to be seen to be taking action. But the thing is, the rest of this plan would not be "business as usual" - it would be positively revolutionary.

Bikes, scooters and skateboards are currently banned from the Mall

Some changes to the Mall may be warranted. For example, I still think it's a good idea to allow cyclists to ride through the Mall, as cyclists tend to be much more connected to the places they're travelling through, and can therefore provide that passive surveillance and spend their money in businesses.

But at a high level, if they did everything else mentioned in the plan - encouraging shop-top housing, encouraging a better mix of restaurants etc into the Mall, and redeveloping the surrounding land - that would make a massive difference to the vitality of the Mall. There would be a huge boost in the numbers of people - not cars, people - moving through the space at all hours of the day, shopping and eating and drinking and generally just living. Which is exactly what the Mall needs.

Moreover, the "grand entrance" concept - if it holds water - would not be in any way contingent on reopening the Mall to traffic. Cars could have this nice terminating vista at the bottom of Victoria Street, and then just continue onto Little Bridge as they do today. It's not "all or nothing" here - they can delete the bad parts without affecting the good.

Overall, I really commend the City of Ballarat for this plan - there is a lot to love. I really hope the proposed infill developments, combined with projects like Nightingale Ballarat, can build some momentum for more medium-density living in central Ballarat - we really need it, and there's a ton of suitable sites just waiting to be redeveloped.

But reopening the Mall to traffic would reduce the good this plan could do - so it's worth pushing back against it. Consultation is open till 30 September, so make sure you have your say