WATERFRONT LAND USE IN THE SIX AUSTRALIAN STATE CAPITALS¹

1 This study is based on field work in Australia in 1967 and 1968. A generous research grant from the Canada Council, and the help of my wife, who acted as field assistant, are gratefully acknowledged.

ABSTRACT

Waterfront land in the six Australian state capitals, Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth, and Hobart, is a valuable urban resource subject to competing uses. Sydney, Brisbane, and Hobart are on broad estuaries that provide ample waterfront space; in contrast, Melbourne, Adelaide, and Perth are several miles upstream on small rivers and are served by narrow, riverine harbors complemented by more exposed outer harbors developed later. Waterfront land use is dominated by the park and recreational category, especially in Melbourne, Adelaide, and Perth. Waterfront land use priorities in these cities were emphasized by the shortage of available space, owing to the confined nature of the harbors and the extensiveness of park use. Shipping terminals appeared to hold the highest priority for space, and residences the lowest. The use of waterfront land resources should be planned on a metropolitan scale and residential use should be minimized, whereas public park use should be maximized.

Notes

1 This study is based on field work in Australia in 1967 and 1968. A generous research grant from the Canada Council, and the help of my wife, who acted as field assistant, are gratefully acknowledged.

2 J. Bird, Seaport Gateways of Australia, (London: Oxford University Press, 1968), pp. 2–6.

3 Official Yearbook of the Commonwealth of Australia, No. 53, 1967, (Canberra: Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics, 1967), p. 433.

4 Standard Industrial Classification Manual, (Ottawa: Dominion Bureau of Statistics, 1960). This classification was used with the eventual aim of comparing data collected on Australian cities with similar data already available for certain Canadian cities.

5 The ranking of land use percentages suggests the existence of four groups of uses, as measured by length of frontage occupied (Table 2). The figures in brackets refer to ranks in all six cities:1) Residences; water transportation and services; manufacturing (1–3).2) Commercial, business and personal services; defence services; trade (4–6).3) Public administration; transportation (other than water) and storage; communications and utilities (7–9).4) Construction; fishing, logging, and mining (10 and 11).

6 Report on the Metropolitan Area of Adelaide, (Adelaide: Town Planning Committee, 1962), p. 26.

7 Sydney Harbour Foreshore Study Report (Preliminary), (Sydney: State Planning Authority of New South Wales, Investigation and Development Branch, December, 1967), p. 9.

8 Recreational service (859) frontage normally belongs in this category, but was included with park frontage instead, as explained earlier.

9 C. N. Forward, “A Comparison of Waterfront Land Use in Four Canadian Ports: St. John's, Saint John, Halifax and Victoria,”Economic Geography, Vol. 45 (1969), pp. 155 69. Although this study was restricted to waterfront land use within harbor areas, the field mapping on which it was based, conducted in 1966, covered the metropolitan areas in question. Forward, C. N., Waterfront Land Use in Metropolitan Vancouver, British Columbia, Geographical Paper No. 41, (Ottawa: Geographical Branch, 1968).