YES, indeed, that was the original reason for establishing them. Only look at photographs of Ballarat taken in the 19th and early 20th centuries and you will see people greeting each other and enjoying a conversation in Sturt Street among the moving carriages.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
But this friendly ambience changed once motor vehicles emerged onto the scene.
Cars, buses, and trucks were given priority on all roads and pedestrians confined to the edge.
City planning is now driven by the mindset of giving priority in cities to allow faster and smoother traffic flow resulting in road widening with accompanying encroachment of pedestrian areas.
Is this the way we want to live in cities?
Do we enjoy cities more when vehicles dominate and are given priority? Moreover, should we learn to love living among high rise office buildings, increasing car parks and less open space in our Central Business Districts?
Do we really want to see more vehicles coming into the CBD? I suggest that most of us find this trend in city planning unwelcome.
Do not despair all is not lost.
Innovative architects worldwide have studied how people use cities and what they enjoy about them.
One such person, Danish architect Jan Gehl, spent 40 years studying the subject and concluded that many "modern" cities repel human interaction.
He argues we should build cities in a way that takes the human need for inclusion and intimacy into account.
For instance, in Copenhagen, once streets were closed to traffic, people flocked to them because of the relaxed atmosphere there.
New York is following this trend by closing streets to traffic, as is London, where a forested bridge is being built.
After the earthquakes that destroyed much of inner
Christchurch, the government took the job of planning a new city away from the local council and took account of community desires for their city.
Similarly in Australia, Melbourne has been revitalising its famous bluestone laneways and Brisbane, Perth and Launceston are following a similar trend.
Instead of inner-city infill with high rise buildings, new plans are including more pedestrian areas, city parks and walk ways and the rapid colonisation by the public of these areas has demonstrated their popularity.
What has this got to do with Ballarat, you ask? We already have a fine, wide main street with trees, statues, fountains and seating.
Yes, but is it used and if not why not? Perhaps it is because many seats face the road, while if they were arranged in clusters social interactions would be more pleasant?
And what about proposed new developments? Have they been designed with the social and health needs of people using them in mind?
For instance, is there enough, attractive open space incorporated into the plans for the Railway Precinct to cater for the large numbers of people who will live, visit and work there?
Has the Ballarat West Employment Precinct plan incorporated the social needs of the workforce? For instance, could access to the site by foot or bicycle be encouraged by a bridge over the road from the residential areas banned for vehicles?
Can we reduce noise, air pollution and traffic in the CBD by having a "park and ride" amenity on this and perhaps a second site on the edge of the city?
Finally, do we have enough open space (pocket parks) in the Central Business District where the public can socialise in a relaxing environment?
Such a park would also contribute to psychological health by providing an opportunity to interact with nature. Is there not an opportunity to develop such a city park on the Civic Hall Precinct, which would also provide an attractive setting for the Hall itself?
