Sustainability: Creating a sustainable and resilient WaterlooA workshop and community discussion organised by Inner Sydney Voice about sustainable urban environments and their varying degrees of sustainability.

DEBRIEFINGWorkshop Title Sustainability: Creating a sustainable and resilient WaterlooObjectives Learn about sustainable urban environments and latest

innovations in urban sustainability, think about trade-offs and competing priorities related to sustainability, develop mapping and spatial skills, map sustainable amenities for future Waterloo

Held on Thursday 22nd February – 10am-1pmTarget Audience Waterloo public housing tenants, local residents, community

and government workers.Organised by Inner Sydney VoiceFacilitated by Rob Roggema, University of Technology Sydney (UTS)

Presentation by Anna Mitchell - Sustainability Unit – City of SydneySome maps (heat, flooding, trees) provided by City of SydneyThomas Chailloux, Inner Sydney Voice

Report Aim Debrief and record outcomes of the workshop for those who couldn’t attend.

Attendance 18 people total11 people filled the attendance sheet:8 identified as female and 3 as male1 was between 25 and 44 years old, 6 between 45 and 64 years old, 3 between 65 and 84 years old, and 1 didn’t say.3 spoke a language other than English at home.

All of the documents mentioned are available on request. South Sydney Herald February & March editions also include articles related to sustainable urban environments and this workshop, as well as Inner Sydney Voice Magazine Autumn edition.

Sustainability Workshop & Community Discussion 22/02/18 Summary of FeedbackDid you find the content of the workshop relevant and useful?

Very useful: 4/8Useful: 4/8Not Useful: 0/8

How did you find the structure of the workshop?Well structured: 7/8

Could be improved: 1/8Poorly structured: 0/8

How did you find the timing of the workshop?Too long: 0/8Right amount of time: 8/8Too short: 0/8

Would you recommend your friend/neighbour to participate in a similar workshop?Definitely: 6/8Possibly: 2/8No: 0/8

Additional suggestions/feedback:o Workshop was very good and participants were eagero My neighbours are complex and I am not the best placed to suggest for them to come to a

capacity building workshop (‘suggestions need to come in a direction that is not me’)o Strongly recommend having 25% of participants that are ‘disabled’ at the meeting, people

who are ‘dependent on wheelchairs’ (Note: Venue was fully accessible and people with a disability are welcome to CB workshops). Do not build anything without disability input

o Have a security expert present who can advise on doors, windows, locks, lighting and safe pathways. ‘I have always recommended light sensor walkways’.

o State how this workshop can support people with their submissions when the 3 options are released. Maybe recap the planning process so it is clear how people can use what they learned in the session

 Introduction: What does Sustainability mean to me? – DebriefingThe community discussion was introduced by Rob Roggema, professor of sustainable urban environments at UTS, urban design expert and main facilitator for the workshop. A one-page table presenting different potential ‘levels of sustainability’ was distributed to all participants so they could start thinking about what ‘sustainable’ means in terms of traffic, water, nature, waste, energy consumption and food production. This document was completed by a 60-page booklet available on all tables including more detailed examples, case studies and many photos of sustainability amenities and projects in Australia and the rest of the world.

To kick start the discussion, participants were asked to write a short definition of sustainability and what it means to them in a few minutes before to share it with the group if they wished. Some of the definitions that people proposed were:

“A minimum energy consumption space, a green space, with plenty of transport options, and low waiting times to cross the road for pedestrians”

“Using recycling, participate in a community garden, and create compost for your garden”

“Allows to maintain your lifestyle without jeopardising the lifestyle future generations of intelligent species choose for themselves”

“ A space with fresh air, shade, and energy efficient buildings where you can walk”

“When it can maintain its existence through natural development and positive human influence”“A space where there is a positive human impact”

“Before Europeans got here” (Aboriginal culture was discussed by participants as being a very sustainable system that worked for tens of thousands of years)

“Being able to cross ventilate” (instead of having to use air conditioning to cool down your house)

All these definitions were useful in starting a discussion about the diverse aspects of a sustainable urban environment and how people can have different priorities and definitions of sustainability. This laid the groundwork for the following exercise of choosing and negotiating sustainability levels, preceded by the presentation of City of Sydney’s vision of sustainability.

City of Sydney vision for Sustainable Urban Environments, Anna Mitchell, City of Sydney Sustainability Unit – DebriefingAnna Mitchell, Senior Sustainability Strategist at City of Sydney, presented the vision of the City for a sustainable urban environment and how it fit within the “Sustainable Sydney 2030” strategy. First of all, Anna Mitchell reminded participants of the specific role of the City of Sydney as part of the Waterloo Redevelopment. Given the planning process used, since Waterloo has been declared a State Significant Precinct, the State Government is the main decision maker. However, there is a Project Working Group that includes City of Sydney, Land & Housing Corporation, Urban Growth NSW, Department of Planning & Environment and Transport for NSW. This will allow the City of Sydney to give advice and have some input into the process.

In any case at the end of the redevelopment the City will own and manage roads, sewers and parks, collect waste and provide community infrastructure in the area. This makes the City very interested in Waterloo Redevelopment. They will have a strong focus on achieving sustainable outcomes for the new built environment.

Anna Mitchell then presented what a sustainable urban environment means for the City of Sydney, providing specific case studies exemplified with pictures and data. This included urban design responses and initiatives related to:

Building a low-carbon city Building a water sensitive city Moving towards a climate resilient city Aiming for zero-waste Building a cooler and greener city Creating an active and connected city

The presentation included plenty of pictures and opportunities for participants to ask questions and make comments at any time. To conclude, Anna presented what the ambition of the City of Sydney is for sustainability in the next 12 years as part of the vision for “Sustainable Sydney 2030”.This includes, but isn’t limited to:

A 70% reduction in carbon emissions A target of 50% of energy coming from renewable energy sources A zero net increase in water use A target of 90% resource recovery/recycling A 50% increase in urban canopy

Participants were very interested in hearing about the City of Sydney vision for sustainability directly from a senior strategist, and it helped setting the general picture before people defined their targets for a Sustainable Waterloo in the future.

The PowerPoint and other discussion materials used are attached to this debriefing document and available on request from cb@innersydneyvoice.org.au.

What are YOUR sustainability targets? - Individual reflection – DebriefingBased on the “levels of sustainability” one pager prepared by Rob Roggema, participants were invited to choose a sustainability level (A,B or C; with A being a fully sustainable urban environment; B a significant improvement compared to the current situation, and C a ‘business as usual’ type of model) for different areas (Traffic, Water, Nature, Waste, Energy, Food).

The facilitator invited people to think in detail about the levels and to have a look at every single policy and proposition made within the levels, with the possibility to move things from one category to another, or to make up your own personal level of sustainability with elements from each category.

Participants reflected on and chose sustainable urban amenities and policies during 15 minutes.

What are YOUR sustainability targets? – Group Negotiation – DebriefingFollowing the individual reflection phase, participants were invited to discuss their choices with others at their table, and to negotiate in order to reach an agreement for the whole table. For example, some people might want to ban individual private cars from public spaces entirely while for others, convenient car parking in every street might be an important priority.

Participants had 5 minutes per theme for 6 themes, making this exercise a 30min negotiation. Every table then formulated feedback on the level of sustainability they chose for future Waterloo, why and how they might have modified it. There was also time for questions and general discussion. The following paragraph summarises key points that are representative of discussions people had on the day.

All groups, although there were significant differences in sustainability related choices, settled for a significant increase in sustainability of the build environment for the future of the area (B-Level), while including a few key elements of the most ambitious level (A). Unless everything else felt unrealistic, very few choices included elements from level C as negotiation encouraged participants to be ambitious about sustainability.

One group questioned whether the levels of on-site/urban food production were realistic. Indeed, the lowest option, at level C, was still 5% of food produced on site, and 50% for level A. There were wondering what the current level was. Rob Roggema recognised that according to his calculations, current level of food production in urban areas in the Netherlands for example, was 0.002%. Although this is really low, what is theoretically possible is however very different. On 12% of the available space in urban areas, it could be possible according to Rob Roggema to produce 25% of the food consumption and perhaps even higher with technological improvements.

Two groups had similar discussions about the fact that some aspects of sustainability had trade-offs between them, which made it difficult to choose ambitious levels for everything. For example, if you wanted to use rooftop space for some uses, you had to determine whether you preferred rooftop community gardens/green spaces or solar panels. The question of how much space is available is therefore an important one.

One table had a specific question about separation of grey and black water for onsite cleaning and re-use. The group was wondering whether on-site separation created health issues. The answer is that transport is complicated and once you have mixed grey and black water it is very hard to separate again, which makes the water treatment very inefficient. It is better to separate at the source and then choose an adapted cleaning process. A suggested design to clean grey water and then use it to keep creeks flowing was discussed with participants.All tables agreed that separating groundwater from grey and black water from the start would be great. Someone reminded the group that in Woolloomooloo grey and groundwater exit through the same system, which causes health and safety issues when it floods and/or drains are blocked. Everyone agreed that grey water should always be separated and re-used in future Waterloo.

Another important issue that arose was the equity aspect of building sustainable urban environments. One participant suggested that sustainable urban environments were often a vehicle for gentrification and that we had to keep the equity aspect in mind otherwise we would end up with “eco-aristocrats” in high quality build while others are affected by consequences of low levels of sustainability and climate change. Participants agreed that it was very important to set up planning controls so sustainability measures restrict and benefit everyone equally.

Tri-Generation systems such as the ones used at CUB Brewery were discussed. Tri-Gen usually refers to a system where a gas generator is used produce electricity through a generator, with the consequential heat being used to then produce hot water for A/C or heating for pools. Heating water is done instead of just losing the heat as in a classic gas system. Participants were interested in whether this could be an interesting way to reduce energy consumption on a residential site. Anna Mitchell from the City of Sydney advised that there was a ‘Tri-Gen’ network put together by the City but due to rising gas prices it was not as cost effective as it used to be. Logistics can also be quite hard to figure out, however, a Tri-generation system is still interesting in specific contexts. Rob Roggema advised that in response to increased gas prices, you could try to use biogas produced from waste, which is the most sustainable system anyway as otherwise you would need fossil fuels.Some participants also suggested to use ‘smart grids’ systems at the neighbourhood level in order to minimise energy consumption and make it as efficient as possible.

One participant delivered an ambitious and inspiring speech: “if we were to build new buildings and infrastructure in Waterloo, there were no excuses for it to not be sustainable. Waterloo Redevelopment is a real opportunity to realise these kind of things through investment in built environment and infrastructure. The whole site is redeveloped so let’s be ambitious!” Rich people, who will make up 70% of future residents will expect the best in terms of sustainable urban environment so it should be best practice in design for a 100% of the community. In addition to this, building a sustainable neighbourhood from the start is cheaper to do now than later due to retrofitting costs. The conclusion was clear, “what we want is an Eco-Estate!”.

Waterloo Redevelopment – Mapping Sustainability - DebriefingBefore to get into the mapping exercise the MC reminded participants against the “fear of ambition”, and that reaching a sustainable urban environment often implied starting with high ambitions in order to reach an acceptable level of sustainability after compromise. He also

encouraged people to “treat the plans with self-confidence” when Options are presented to residents during the ‘Options Testing’ phase of the Waterloo Master Planning. At such an early stage, plans are usually “not perfect, they can be improved!”.

The mapping exercise used maps of the Waterloo area including boundaries of the State Significant Precinct (SSP) and buildings shapes. People were invited to place the sustainability amenities they had negotiated during the previous exercise on the map, using data from maps provided by City of Sydney about urban heat island effect, water, tree cover, etc.

The first group chose to make the redeveloped Waterloo a precinct where pedestrians and people on bikes are actively favoured over other modes of transportation, with a main artery where bikes and pedestrians have priority (currently George St). In order to enable connections to and from the precinct, on top of the new Metro station, two ‘eco-friendly multiuse parking’ reserved for residents at the northern-east1 and southern-west2 corners of the SSP area were proposed. Participants decided to keep the existing parks of Waterloo Green and in Mount Carmel precinct, with a better connection to Waterloo Oval through a green overpass over McEvoy St for the latter. For food production and community purposes, an urban farm was proposed on Mead St. This would make the whole Mount Carmel precinct a green area of the redeveloped Estate, leading westwards through a green corridor.

In terms of Water Sensitive Urban Design, Water Squares all along Cope St are designed to collect stormwater and rainwater and avoid flooding at the bottom of the area.

1 Corner Philip/Pitt St2 Corner McEvoy/Cope St

It was also proposed that the Metro Quarter above the station includes a supermarket (preferably Coles), a community centre and a Health Hub with access to all essential services. In regard to energy and food production, it was requested that all north facing windows are equipped with solar panels and that all rooftops have community gardens on them.

The second group focused on water sensitive urban design, urban greenery and tree canopy as well as reducing conflicts of uses between people on bikes and pedestrians. After identifying, thanks to the potential flooding maps of the City of Sydney that most water comes down Raglan and Wellington St in case of a storm, the group decided to design a water retaining garden at the corner of Pitt st and Raglan St, as well as on the northern side of Wellington St. On top of this, water squares used for recreational activities are designed on both sides of Wellington st between Cooper St and George St. They are part of a larger open space/park complex that is central to the redeveloped Estate, and creates a desire line from the Metro quarter to the new ‘neighbourhood centre’. Buildings are arranged around this ‘green heart’ so many residents can enjoy views of green space and benefit from the reduction in urban heat island effect.Group participants decided to retain all existing trees and improve tree cover. This is symbolised on the map by trees all along Raglan St, but there should be trees lining every street in the redeveloped Eco-Estate. Another important point which came out of the group was the willingness to keep the existing socialisation area located between the Matavai and Turanga buildings. However, currently there are some conflicts of uses between people on bikes and pedestrians/people socialising due to the George St cycleway leading rather naturally to the path going through Waterloo Green. Participants tried to think about an innovative way to reduce these conflicts that did not involve closing up the space or inconveniencing users of the space. It was eventually suggested to create an elevated cycleway through the Green in order to; slow down bicycles coming down George St by creating an uphill section, separating people on bikes from people socialising and pedestrians, while creating an informal passive recreation area on the edges/sides of the “hill” created by the elevation of the cycleway/’cyclist overpass’. One of the main issues the group encountered, along all other participants, was that they didn’t know whether to use the existing street grid or not, but it did not prevent participants to design an eco-Estate in the end.

The third group took a more comprehensive approach and designed many types of sustainability amenities on the existing buildings and street grid (I am not aware whether this is a statement to keep buildings as they are or just a convenience since we do not know yet where future buildings will be located).The amenities that participants wanted implemented on all buildings were solar panels on roofs and gardens, as well as green walls. All buildings should be the same and include underground car parks. One of the main ideas was also to maximise parkland such as current Waterloo Green and use good insulation for warmth because concrete is cold. One of the most innovative ideas put forward by this group was to design ‘pavement gardens’, installing garden beds on very wide sections of pavement, on both sides of George St as well as on the western side of Pitt St. On the western side of George St at the top, some market gardens were also envisioned.

The group was attached to keeping Waterloo Green as it is, with no loss of open space, but improving it through introduction of deciduous trees, community gardens on the side of Raglan St, and 50% of trees lining Raglan St to produce edible fruits. The group also recommended to use vines for ornamental purposes. An idea contributing to sustainability was to use grey water recycling for the Green area.

In terms of limiting energy consumption, it was proposed to allow natural air conditioning and cross ventilation through use of windows that you can actually open. Green walls will also allow cooling

the area and reduce the urban heat island effect. Concerning calming and limiting traffic, it was proposed to retain all existing roundabouts at the corners of Cope St and Pitt St with Wellington St and Raglan St.

Participants worked on large maps of the Estate including buildings shapes and SSP boundaries. They used sustainability levels previously negotiated and some maps including sustainability data put together by City of Sydney.

This mapping exercise allowed participants to concretely apply the levels of sustainability they had negotiated as a group, and to think creatively in order to resolve conflicts of use and competing priorities. The result was a very stimulating exercise that encouraged people to think ambitiously and rehearse their arguments in order to engage efficiently in the next phase of the Waterloo Master Planning process, Options Testing.

The key points and ambitions that came out of activities with residents for the future of Waterloo were:

Use an equity based approach so planning controls and sustainability measures restrict and benefit everyone equally

A significant increase in built environment sustainability, creating an Eco-Estate Retain all existing trees and improve cover with trees lining every street Maximise parkland Keep Waterloo Green, with no loss of open space Improve Waterloo Green by introducing deciduous trees, community gardens on the side of

Raglan St, and 50% of trees lining Raglan St producing edible fruits Urban farm on Mead St Use smart grid systems at the neighbourhood level Actively favour pedestrians and people on bikes over other transportation modes Give priority to pedestrians and people on bikes on main artery of future neighbourhood

Create an elevated cycleway through the Green to reduce use conflicts Create a green overpass over McEvoy St to improve connection between Waterloo Oval and

adjacent park Retain existing roundabouts at the corners of Cope St and Pitt St with Wellington St and

Raglan St for traffic calming Equip all north facing windows with solar panels Create community gardens on all rooftops All buildings include solar panels on roofs and gardens Use good insulation for warmth Allow natural air conditioning and cross ventilation through use of windows that you can

actually open Green walls on all buildings Constant separation and re-use of grey water (use grey-water recycling for the Green area) Create water retaining gardens at the corner of Pitt St and Raglan St and on northern side of

Wellington St Water Squares all along Cope St Create water squares also used for recreational activities on both sides of Wellington st

between Cooper St and George St.

ConclusionSustainability and climate change adaptability were themes that did not come out strongly from previous capacity building and regular consultation sessions. Through this workshop, the Community Capacity Building programme offered the opportunity for people particularly interested in urban sustainability to participate in an in-depth discussion. Local public housing and private residents, along with community and government workers, were very keen to learn about the latest innovations and possibilities for sustainable urban environments. They also demonstrated willingness and skills to co-create visions of a future “Eco-Estate” during the mapping exercise. The small group of highly engaged residents, along with flexible facilitation and participation of local government, made this community discussion a highly successful capacity building session.Residents were encouraged to take their ideas and ambitions for the future of the neighbourhood to the next phase of community engagement of Waterloo Master Planning process.