Against the grain: public interests, the parklet, and the university

ABSTRACT

Temporary/tactical or T/T urbanism is a global movement in urban design and planning encompassing small experimental interventions typically involving diverse actors in the conversion of under-utilised city spaces. Its outcomes include enhancing innovation, urban intensification, community engagement, place identity, and resilience. Yet questions remain about the extent to which large organisations engaging in T/T urbanism may be part of an increasingly legitimised, even sanitised approach to what has been a disruptive element of urban design and planning. In Tasmania, studies of T/T urbanism are limited. The qualitative research reported here addresses that gap and analyses street interviews and participants’ opinions about a temporary parklet proposed by the University of Tasmania in the Hobart central business district. Analysed thematically, those views and additional insights from the literature suggest it is possible for a large organisation to engage local communities and serve public interests using T/T urbanism initiatives but that the outcomes are not guaranteed.

KEYWORDS:

• Community engagement
• COVID-19
• place identity
• Tasmania
• T/T urbanism
• temporary urbanism
• tactical urbanism
• urban design

Practitioner points

• This case study adds to the literature on T/T urbanism in Australia and provides insights on how a parklet was perceived by residents of one city.

• Our research suggests there is an underlying desire to see streets designed for people, not traffic.

• Findings show is possible for large organisational actors to try and serve public interests using T/T urbanism initiatives but the outcomes are not guaranteed.

Introduction

In many settlements around the world, streetscapes have growing numbers of parklets, guerrilla gardens, temporary street furniture, street vending, small book libraries, and interactive art installations. These temporary and tactical interventions exemplify how public, private, and non-government organisations and diverse publics engage with urban space. The expression ‘temporary urbanism’ is often used in Europe to refer to processes whereby city authorities and others experiment with loose planning ideals and design frameworks linked to phased packages of small-scale, typically temporary initiatives to unlock urban sites’ potential (Bishop and Williams 2012; Stevens and Dovey 2019). The term ‘tactical urbanism’ is often deployed in North America to describe short-term, low-cost, small-scale interventions by individuals, communities, and municipalities to enhance city life over the long term (Jiang, Ware, and Gao 2019). Other, less common terms include everyday urbanism (Chase, Crawford, and Kaliski 1999), guerrilla urbanism (Hou 2020), and DIY, or do-it-yourself, urbanism (Foster 2020). Either way, the:

search for an appropriate language to describe these practices reflects the fact that we are not quite sure what, if anything, connects them across their diversity. This conceptual question of commonalities and connections is of more than academic interest. I think it gets to the heart of a crucial question. (Iveson 2013, 941–2)

In this article we start from delineations of T/T urbanism provided by Stevens, Awepuga, and Dovey (2019): a global movement in urban design and planning that encompasses small, experimental interventions often involving diverse actors in converting under-utilised city spaces to new uses. Our focus is on a T/T urban project in Hobart, the capital city of the Australian state of Tasmania. There, in November 2021 the University of Tasmania lodged a development application to create a temporary parklet near its new purpose-built student accommodation in the city centre on Melville Street, and we refer to that case throughout.

Parklets are physical interventions that convert roadside parking spaces into vibrant public spaces in collaborations across local businesses, city councils and other organisations (Birdsall 2013). They often include distinctive design features such as seating, greenery, bike racks, and art installations (Ghandi 2019). For the University of Tasmania, the Melville Street parklet was a small part of an ambitious long-term commitment to move university operations from suburban Sandy Bay to the city centre. The university sought to repurpose 16 on-street parking spaces on that street as a temporary parklet to ‘make the area more user-friendly and encourage people to spend more time in the city’ (University of Tasmania 2021, no page).

Importantly, the development application points to how large organisations deploy T/T urbanism projects that are then rightly subjected to formal planning frameworks, and which they expect. Studying the parklet affords opportunities to understand how, in the process, local communities are engaged, and public interests considered. Interested in how the parklet design would materialise, in 2020 we framed a two-year study that was then completely overturned when, in 2021, the university decided to withdraw the application until further notice because of unanticipated and highly emotive protests against it. Those protests, we clarify, were tied to a larger campaign against the university’s planned – but that is not our focus here.

Stevens, Awepuga, and Dovey (2019) have examined T/T urbanism elsewhere by interviewing expert practitioners and reviewing interventions in Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland, and Western Australia. They have found that approaches to T/T urbanism evolved from unsolicited and often illegal activities led by citizens and community groups to more legitimised practices among professionals, elected representatives, and academics. Moreover, T/T urbanism is reshaped by local conditions including spatial, economic, and governance contexts (Stevens, Awepuga, and Dovey 2021). Their suggestion that more research is needed on T/T urbanism and place is a welcome one.

There have been no studies on T/T urbanism in Hobart, Tasmania, despite both the Hobart City Council’s participation in international PARK(ing) Days (Haynes 2019; Howard 2020; Thorpe 2020) and its construction in 2020 of the Elizabeth Street ‘Midtown’ parklet (City of Hobart 2022). We argue it is time to address the gap not least because Hobart’s residents have a strong sense of place attachment and belonging in place and are known for civic protest against various kinds of developments (Dunlevie and Lehman 2016; Sommer and Yu 2018; Stratford 2009). On that basis, our aim is to describe and analyse street interviews done between September and October 2021 that considered participants’ views on the parklet, and that revealed several themes related to innovation, urban intensity, community engagement, place identity, and resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our case study fills a gap in the literature and addresses a fascinating moment in Hobart’s planning future given that the university’s move to relocate its southern campus had been described as ‘destined to change the Hobart CBD forever’ (Alouat and Kitto 2019, no page).

The September 2021 application to develop the Melville Street parklet as part of the university’s southern campus transformation was based on a survey of city users suggesting they want ‘more greenery, activation and street furniture in the city streets around the campus’ (University of Tasmania 2021, no page). Prior to the proposal being made public, in March 2020 the Hobart City Council had installed the aforementioned ‘Midtown’ parklet in Elizabeth Street, removing eight on-street parking spaces, extending the footpath, and adding seating and greenery (City of Hobart 2022). Figures 1 and 2 show the design of the Midtown parklet on Elizabeth Street and the proposed design of the Melville Street parklet.

Figure 1. The Midtown parklet design on Elizabeth Street. Source: Nicholas Jarman.

Figure 2. The proposed Melville Street parklet design. Permission provided by University of Tasmania Transformation Office.

The balance of the paper outlines the research design, shares key findings, and then turns to a discussion and conclusion. The work we report is significant as a modest contribution to a growing literature underpinned by the knowledge that most T/T urbanism ventures are localised in scale and impact, but research shows it has global implications. In our case, such implications map onto research in other settings such as PARK(ing) Day, in San Francisco and elsewhere (Douay and Prevot 2014; Herman and Rodgers 2020; Thorpe 2020), tactical responses to the pandemic (Herman and Drozda 2021; Stevens and Dovey 2022), and discussions about the future of cars and street designs in Australian cities (Daly, Dovey, and Stevens 2020). In our case, too, such global implications of local change centre on understanding how T/T urbanism contributes to innovation, intensification, engagement, place, and resilience.

Research design

This research is based on the premise that people socially construct their realities using different kinds of language – spoken, written, gestural, and so on. The research design was submitted for and received ethics clearance [UTAS ethics project ID 26083]. We secured permission to interview members of the public (the focus of this paper) and experts involved in the proposal (the focus of other work in review). That work is underpinned by a thematic review and narrative analysis of the literature and a study of media reports and responses to the parklet; again, those are in review and inform our thinking overall.

Given project limitations in terms of time and scope, we hoped to have 30 interviews and fell just short of that, securing 26. The intention was to elicit 15 interviews from a simple random sample of individuals at the corner of Elizabeth and Melville streets at different times of day and different days of the week, and supplement those with another 15 interviews with people in our networks. For this small part of the larger study, then, Nicholas Jarman conducted semi-structured interviews with Hobart residents so described, which generated qualitative data to gain insights into people’s varied understanding of the Melville Street parklet proposal. We planned for interviews to be conducted next to the proposed site. However, COVID-19 lockdown restrictions were briefly put in place during data collection in mid-October 2021, which meant two interviews were done via Zoom (see Dunlevie 2021).

Conducting interviews in situ allows researchers to uncover deeper understandings of place that come from being in place and in the moment (Holton and Riley 2014). As social spaces, interview sites and situations are important in qualitative research in geography and planning because they reveal varied socio-spatial relations and meanings ascribed to place by participants (Elwood and Martin 2000). For those we interviewed, the council’s Midtown parklet on Elizabeth Street was often a reference point for understanding the university’s Melville Street proposal. Being in situ also fostered opportunities to reflect on and consider questions and responses as participants looked to their surrounds and tapped into sensory experiences of a place that generally is noisy, busy, and peopled.

Findings

Having been recorded, interviews were transcribed and analysed, with both researchers reading through interview transcripts independently and then discussing them together to identify if and how content mapped onto overarching themes associated with T/T urbanism, identified in the literature, and flagged in the introduction. Those themes relate to enhancing innovation, increasing urban intensity, promoting community engagement, fostering place identity, and strengthening resilience (Stevens, Awepuga, and Dovey 2019, 2021).

Below, we examine how themes and participant responses to interview questions correlate in terms of the Melville Street parklet and consider whether and how participants’ views map on to discussions about T/T urbanism elsewhere. We asked the following questions, prompting for elaboration when warranted:

1. How long have you lived in Hobart?

2. Do you know what is happening in this area along Melville Street?

3. What do you think about such plans for Melville Street?

4. Would such a change to Melville Street affect how you use the street?

5. From what you have heard, do you think this proposed change will include the local community?

6. Can you help me understand the reason for your response?

7. How does this change fit with what the city of Hobart means to you?

8. What do you think about this kind of temporary space during the COVID-19 pandemic?

9. Have you any other thoughts you’d like to share about the street?

Among 26 participants, the median number of years spent living in Hobart was just under 20 years and 18 participants had lived in Hobart for 15 years or longer, while three had been in Hobart less than three years in total. On that basis, we assumed high levels of familiarity with the city – if not the parklet proposal – but do not presume to suggest that views shared with us are representative.

Fifteen participants had no knowledge of the parklet proposal. Eleven participants’ knowledge varied from knowing very little – ‘Not really, I know that they are doing it up but that is all’ (#23) and ‘I have heard that there is a proposed development, maybe temporary but that is all’ (#20) – to being aware of some of the project’s details – ‘I’ve only heard that they are doing an extension and having an outdoor seating area’ (#8). One participant may have been misinformed or misinterpreted information they had seen and/or read, saying ‘I think the road is going to get shut off and it’s going to become more of a walkway kinda thing’ (#7). Another simply said, ‘I don’t really care … I don’t know much about the street other than it’s a street with shit on it’ (#4). Only four participants knew the university was associated with the site plans. Again, descriptions varied considerably from ‘there looks like there is some sort of development associated with the university but that’s about all I know’ (#5) to ‘I guess they’re creating a nicer space to make it more people-friendly’ (#6). A few acknowledged hearing about plans or seeing concept designs: ‘I have heard things but not [seen] concrete plans’ (#24), ‘I have heard bits and pieces and I have seen some concept designs’ (#2), ‘I have a brief idea from an Instagram post I saw with some mock-up designs; a bit of a spot for people to hang out’ (#3), and ‘I have seen a lot of development related to the university but I haven’t really seen any future project plans’ (#12).

Next we consider the relationship of participant views to themes identified.

Innovation

Urban innovation includes transformations in communities, neighborhoods, and cities, some of which are driven by social inclusion (Robinson et al. 2019). In this context, T/T urbanism can be considered a viable means to accelerate innovation by reducing both cost and risk (Bishop and Williams 2012).

As for the Melville Street parklet, three participants thought the parklet was innovative – for Hobart. They cited examples from interstate and overseas where T/T urbanism is common, including, for example, Portland, Oregon. One said, ‘I think the Hobart CBD has a lot of promise … there’s not a lot of pedestrian spaces like there are in … Melbourne and Sydney … for people to come and gather and for events to take place, so I think it’s a good idea that fits with my idea of Hobart as a cultural and artistic city and a city that is trying to promote that’ (#22). Likewise, another said that ‘the uni coming into town is a good thing culturally because it’s going to bring a lot of different perspectives to our streets’ (#1). Others thought the parklet innovative because it was ‘opening up streets for pedestrian use and hang out areas instead of traffic’ (#3) and because experts ‘have recommended we cut back on street traffic and street parking and encourage people to use spaces more interactively and create more foot traffic and take away [vehicle] congestion in the CBD’ (#18).

Thirteen participants expressed support for reducing cars in the CBD to ‘minimise as much street traffic in the midtown and central areas of Hobart as possible’ (#18) and were in favour of pedestrians because ‘it’s good to have more spaces for pedestrians’ (#19). One said, ‘the more they do that around the city, the more accessible for everybody’ (#10). Yet, some had reservations about how the parklet would affect parking and traffic. One said, ‘it’s a good idea … The only downside is less parking on the street. I’ve noticed that on Elizabeth Street … But apart from that, I think it’s a great idea’ (#3). Another said, ‘if it’s just an extension of the footpath then I don’t see a problem with it although it will mean less parking spots in streets in town which is a bit harder but that’s fine … I don’t care that much’ (#7). In fact, participants saw traffic and parking problems as issues in the CBD irrespective of the presence of parklets.

Parklets were also viewed as inclusive and interactive outdoor spaces where people could meet and congregate. One participant said that ‘Hobart can be quite plain and not very interactive … Hobart needs something more than just old buildings, so I think [the parklet] will be a good thing’ (#15). The Melville Street parklet was seen as new and different because before its advent ‘there weren’t really many outdoor places in the centre of the city where you could sit outside’ (#21). Some thought it would ‘be good for the community’ (#8) and ‘increase spaces for pedestrians to congregate’ (#2) by ‘creating a nicer space to make [the area] more people-friendly’ (#6). Others saw the parklet as ‘somewhere you can socialise more and [have as] a meeting point’ (#12) and thought that ‘it will be good to have another … public area for people to hang out in’ (#23) that was ‘more inclusive and brings people into the city to relax’ (#17). It is worth noting that the Midtown parklet on Elizabeth Street seemed to work because, as one participant noted, businesses in the midtown area ‘are places where people like to sit outside and have a drink or food … [and] there are no shopfronts on [Melville] street but if … students can sit there, and people can read their books then I think it’s a good idea’ (#24). That person was cautiously supportive of the university’s proposal, saying, ‘I think things like this are good but … there is a fine line [if] the university [is] taking over everything’ (#24), for which there was no evidence in the plans submitted with the development application.

Some participants were wary of any new developments in the city if they imperilled built heritage. One observed that ‘this is a beautiful street … there is a lot of heritage here’ (#14); another noted, ‘there’s so many great historic buildings on Melville Street … it would be a shame to lose any of those’ (#22); and a third remarked, ‘I’m hoping that [Melville Street] can retain some of its historical charm’ (#6). However, not all were convinced by that kind of appeal, with one seeing the parklet as an signal that Hobart ‘is developing and moving on from being a heritage sort of town and it’s cool to see little built-up areas like that’ (#8). Two thought the parklet could be economically beneficial because it had the potential to ‘entice tourism’ (#4) and help create ‘more of a vibrant nightlife and alfresco dining area. I think it’s really important to create … spaces that help with the economy’ (#18).

The possibility that new infrastructure would come with the university’s move into the city appealed to some participants, one observing that ‘it’s definitely a good thing especially if they are putting more into our infrastructure and making more things readily available for the public too’ (#1), and another stating that ‘the uni coming into town and making it a better, more open street and building infrastructure is definitely a good thing and I am all for it’ (#1). Some were more guarded, one saying, ‘I would really like to see them expand infrastructure so that we can live here without the traffic jams and without the increase of violence and homelessness … [but] whenever a city grows, there are often these dark corners that are forgotten about’ (#14). Another said ‘if you come to the Hobart city on a Sunday night, there is no one here but by having these kind of things, it means that people would have more reason to use the space all the time and not just weekdays’ (#16). Nevertheless, many thought the parklet could activate the area. For one, it would be ‘a nice improvement because Melville Street has always been a bit bare’ (#6); for another, ‘this particular block seems to be pretty under-utilised’ (#22); a third, wanted ‘to see them … get rid of the dead space of carparks’ (#14).

Urban intensity

While urban density refers to the number of people per unit area of land, in this context urban intensity refers to the concentration or volume of spatial interactions that a city street has to offer. Streets that accommodate higher concentrations, more diverse activities, and/or a greater volume of spatial interactions are seen as offering higher urban intensity (Sevtsuk et al. 2013).

Parklets can increase urban intensity and consideration of that was evident in participants’ comments about whether and how the proposal could affect their own use of Melville Street. We were told: ‘I do commute down Melville Street quite a bit’ (#1); ‘I have lived in West Hobart a long time at the top of this hill and walked down here a lot’ (#22); ‘Melville Street is one of those streets that I rarely drive down let alone walk down’ (#16); ‘I don’t really travel past here often’ (#11); and ‘I don’t really drive on it too much as there has some road works there recently’ (#3). However, beyond the street forming part of their travel networks, participants did not say that they have a strong association with it. ‘There is nothing in this particular block that I come to’ (#22) and ‘Melville Street is … really just an alley for me’ (#12).

Eleven participants said the parklet would affect how they use Melville Street: ‘I would actually be more inclined to go there’ (#9); ‘I think it would attract me to the area more’ (#22); and ‘instead of leaving Melville Street on my lunch break, I would probably hang out in Melville Street instead’ (#6). Some speculated about how the space might work: ‘I would probably use it more if there are more places for people to hang out’ (#3); ‘I would probably come down here more often and sit at the park benchy things’ (#10); and ‘if it was a nice area to sit and it became somewhere that people were hanging around and sitting around and eating and talking, socialising, studying’ (#12). Another 11 said the parklet would not affect their use of Melville Street, one suggesting just that it ‘it would … be more pleasant’ (#26).

Considering their driving habits, one participant said ‘it would be pretty easy to find a different way of going around the city and I would probably use the area [parklet] from time to time’ (#19). Another thought they ‘would be more likely to come into this area more often on foot … I would probably drive down the street less’ (#20).

In reflecting on how the parklet on Elizabeth Street intensified the space of the footpath, one skater said, the footpaths were now ‘thinner,’ which ‘increased the likelihood of accidents … [so] opportunity to skateboard down Elizabeth Street’s footpaths [is now] gone’ (#14). However, managing skateboarding and minimising conflict between skateboarders and pedestrians in Hobart is a longstanding issue (Stratford and Harwood 2001), and now added to by the introduction of e-scooters – although that postdates this research but not ongoing debates about people’s uses of streetscapes (Stratford 2020, 2022). Others thought the Melville Street parklet is ‘probably going to be an improvement on what currently exists and … more people would possibly take advantage of it’ (#12) and ‘Elizabeth Street has pretty heavy traffic, but Melville doesn’t really, so it is making greater use of the space’ (#16).

Community engagement

In the context of urban street design, community engagement includes people's ability and willingness to interact with one another, promote inclusivity, and participate in social activities. On that basis, street design can be important because it either suppresses or promotes community engagement in ways influenced by the quality of street connectivity, lighting, cleanliness, noise, and communal spaces (Hassen and Kaufman 2016). The availability and quality of neighbourhood-scale communal spaces can facilitate social capital and place attachment, which can encourage greater community engagement and increase social cohesion in a given area (Zhu 2015). Stevens and Dovey (2019) have suggested that T/T urbanism can encourage end users to be actively involved in the co-production of space through their various interpretations and uses of a T/T urbanism intervention.

When asked about whether the Melville Street parklet would engage members of the local community, nine participants thought it would while 10 thought it should but did not know if that would be the case. One said, ‘It sounds like they are trying to bring in people and create that community’ (#10). With the university behind the proposal, two others said, ‘if it is a university-based thing then it’s going to have group input … It’s a community-based thing’ (#16) and ‘I think that the university is putting in effort to consult with communities before developing areas’ (#5). Most thought the parklet would involve the local community. However, not everyone was convinced, one suggesting that ‘the development of Hobart comes down to who has the money. It has nothing to do with the people of Hobart’ (#14). Another said, ‘I haven’t heard anything about it … I presume that it wouldn’t [include the local community] just because I didn’t know about the one on Elizabeth Street either until it was done so I am not sure if they are doing much to promote any community engagement’ (#24).

One participant suggested that ‘because we are such a small place, even the smallest changes in Hobart can make such a big difference’ (#1). Another said, ‘I think the community should be taking advantage of [the parklet]. Often that can take a little bit of time but … [with] Hobart being a small place I don’t think it would go unused or unnoticed’ (#12). In elaborating on this response, that person said, ‘I think it would probably invite people to spend more time there or at least look and explore … That would be my reason for saying why it would involve the community’ (#12).

To some, the parklet was seen as crucial in creating a sense of community because ‘having these kinds of spaces encourages there to be a community … cities are often not really spaces for communities, they are often spaces for cars and parking. So having spaces where people can sit and meet one another and meet people who are in surrounding offices is going to encourage a community’ (#19). Two participants thought the proposal would be engaging because it ‘makes it easier to move around and meet new people’ (#1). The parklet was also seen as one of that class of public ‘spaces for people to sit down and be with each other and connect’ (#9).

In considering urban development more generally, participants observed that ‘when developments go up, there seems to be some consultation process going on with the community’ (#5), and that ‘community consultation is an important part of city planning so I hope they would [engage]’ (#18). Even so, two participants said consultation with the local community can be challenging and ultimately may yield few benefits. One said: ‘I would anticipate that the council would have to put out a release for public consultation but whether that is particularly fruitful, I don’t know’ (#21). Another:

would hope and assume that the community would be consulted. I guess it is up to the community and how much they engage with that process … as much as you sometimes try to engage the community, you don’t always get the response that you want. Then when you put something in place, you get the backlash … so it’s a bit tricky to manage that. (#22)

These opinions could be considered pessimistic but are substantiated in the literature. Especially as they relate to creating green spaces in urban environments, the challenges and limitations of community engagement processes have been documented elsewhere in Australia. Nolan and March (2016) have shown how the City of Yarra in Melbourne was unsuccessful in establishing community gardens because of a failed community engagement process. Skennar (2004, 2) has argued that the ‘development of public space that occupies a place in all our daily lives is particularly important in alleviating the fracturing of community life, alleviating isolation and in bringing together diverse interests, ages and cultures’. But creating such places is inherently difficult, including in Tasmania, where general support for the Melville Street parklet and a sense of place identity were evident among participants.

Place identity

Proponents of ideas about place identity suggest it is not limited to individual, interpersonal, and social processes but encompasses the physical environment as a fundamental component of personal and collective identity (Casakin and Bernardo 2012; Proshansky, Fabian, and Kaminoff 1983). T/T urbanism can renew under-utilised spaces in intangible ways and reveal and enrich local place identity (Stevens and Dovey 2019). Participants in our study ascribed a strong sense of place identity among Hobartians, particularly as it relates to social connections. One said, ‘we are pretty tight-knit down here’ (#1) and the parklet was seen as something that ‘fits in perfectly … I think that Hobart is a city where people really try to talk about their image of being a close-knit community … I think creating more shared spaces like that would really improve the sort of community interconnectedness’ (#5). Another expressed both pride in and support for the parklet: ‘The city of Hobart is a place that meshes together people from all places and backgrounds. I am very proud to be a part of it and I think [the parklet] is going to integrate into Hobart city very well’ (#1). Another thought the proposal ‘makes [Hobart] better … makes it more inclusive and brings people into the city to relax and have more spaces to come and do your thing’ (#17).

Such desire for inclusive community spaces was evident from several participants who thought that the parklet ‘will make [Hobart] more friendly’ (#25) and that ‘Hobart needs more user-friendly spaces for people in the city’ (#24). One spoke about this part of Melville Street becoming ‘more of a community space. I think that’s important for any city and for the health of the people that live here’ (#19). One hoped the proposal ‘is going to make the streets a bit more pedestrian-friendly which generally Hobart is … but just moving that into spaces that haven’t previously been used is really nice’ (#6). An underlying sense of familiarity – even intimacy – was amplified by one participant who saw ‘the city of Hobart in and of itself … as a large family. Everyone seems to know everybody but in a good way … Hobart tries to create this sense of community and connectiveness which I think [the parklet] is obviously a clear example of how they are trying to do that more so’ (#10).

However, not everyone felt they were part of this tight-knit community, one saying ‘I am not a local so I don’t feel like I can say too much about it nor can I have too much criticism [about the plans for Melville Street]’ (#13). Another said, ‘every experience I have had while I have been down here has been centred around uni … and anything that extends that experience for everyone who comes down to study here is a positive thing. So, I only really see [the parklet] as a positive in that sense’ (#7). Certainly, other studies have shown that students who relocate to new places for university studies can establish a sense of place identity by navigating and appropriating spaces in unfamiliar urban environments (Chow and Healey 2008; Rioux, Scrima, and Werner 2017). However, we can find no studies that examine how T/T urbanism may enhance place attachment for university students in unfamiliar cities.

Many participants reflected on social connection as part of their place identity in Hobart, but only one noted the city’s connection to the natural environment and saw the parklet as: a positive addition.

I think Hobart has huge ties to the ocean, it has huge ties to nature through Mount Wellington and you know the other sort of greenery we experience around the place in such close proximity to the city … it’s a good idea to have more organic stuff throughout the streets rather than the sort of concrete jungle that you do see in larger capital cities … I think it would sort of tie in with the identity of Hobart. (#12)

Certainly, the importance to place identity of the city’s key landmark, the 1,271 metre high Mount Wellington has been documented by Vanclay (2008) and Kirkpatrick, Lefroy, and Harwood (2018). Elsewhere, in inner Adelaide, Collins (2020) has examined how small scale green spaces developed on under-utilised land can benefit city inhabitants by evoking connections with place and making the city feel more vibrant.

Such outcomes for Hobart were seen as important among participants. On that basis, one main reason for supporting the Melville Street proposal was the hope that the parklet would make the city look better. Participants said it was ‘a good idea … [because] instead of it all looking bricks and mortar, it’s going to give it a bit of character’ (#25). Some felt ‘like the street could use some beautifying’ (#13), while others were explicit that Melville Street was visually unimpressive and the parklet would ‘make the street look prettier and that’s always good because it looks a bit shit at the moment’ (#7). Five participants thought the parklet’s planned use of trees and greenery was appealing, one saying:

I’ve always enjoyed greenery on the streets … there’s something about that attachment to nature that humans have. Like there’s a lot of concrete and these man-made materials that make up the cities that we live in, and I think that [it is] quite … mentally refreshing … It’s really nice visually to look at something that has that natural form and natural feel about it and the organic sort of nature which changes over the seasons and throughout the years’ (#12).

However, that person also thought about the planning implications of urban greening: ‘It’s a bit like when you plant a tree, how big is it going to grow? So, if it’s not planned in the right way, that it can be sort of a dud project … So, some foresight in addition to whatever planning is going on is important’ (#12). Another simply said that plans for Melville Street were ‘great so long as they are sustainable and environmentally friendly’ (#14).

Introducing more trees and greenery into the city was supported but some were aware of how many changes were already in train: ‘I have only been here for a year, but it seems like Hobart is changing quite a bit’ (#13). Others saw the parklet as ‘a step moving forward,’ ‘a step in the right direction’ (#2), and ‘a good improvement’ (#26) that would contribute to Hobart ‘progressing in a good way’ (#18). Some thought that ‘Hobart is starting to become a bit more built up’ (#8) and thought both parklets could show that ‘Hobart is expanding and modernising a bit. I’m not sure what it would mean to me, but it would probably encourage me to use the space more and come into the city more’ (#21).

Resilience in COVID times

Resilience is ‘the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganise while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity and feedbacks’ (Walker et al. 2004). Resilient cities have the capacity to adapt to shocks and stresses in ways that preserve functionality and place identity, and T/T urbanism can support such outcomes (Roggema 2014; Stevens and Dovey 2019).

On that understanding, participants were asked about the perceived resilience of the Melville Street parklet in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Six thought it unlikely that the pandemic would affect the proposal: for example, ‘I think that it would be fine, and I don’t think it would make a huge difference’ (#19). Five suggested views along the line of this: ‘Of course it is a concern, but COVID is a concern with everything at the moment’ (#1). Some had not given it any thought: ‘I don’t really have an opinion on that’ (#6). Four thought people would use the space more: ‘it will be a lot friendlier and more useable I think … No, I don’t think COVID will have an effect’ (#26). One suggested that lockdowns would mean that the parklet would ‘not really [be] used. Probably in that context, it’s a bit of a waste of resources in a way’ (#23). Two thought ‘people are going to use it regardless’ (#17). Two emphasised individual responsibility for being COVID-safe on-site: ‘if everyone is doing the right thing and maintaining social distancing, I don’t see a problem with it’ (#8) and ‘COVID has been in our lives for however long now and for most people will be sensible and grown up about how they manoeuvre around’ (#3).

Ultimately, then, opinions varied on whether the pandemic would affect the proposal, but participants tended to think that Tasmania was safe from COVID's worst effects. One participant said: ‘I don’t think [the parklet] would have been used in the pandemic if we were in a lockdown. Not that I think Hobart was in that crazy of a lockdown’ (#10). Another said: ‘it really depends on if the pandemic affects Tassie’ and suggested that ‘life will probably go back to normal in some respect in the next couple of years. I believe the public should look to that and not so much put roadblocks in place because of the current pandemic’ (#18). Likewise, others said, ‘I think realistically down in Tasmania, we have been out of pandemic sway for a while’ (#15) and ‘we are not in any danger here of Delta yet’ (#14).

In retrospect, another participant was prescient when observing that, ‘we are pretty safe as far as COVID goes down here but it would be a different situation if there was an outbreak’ (#1). Community transmission of COVID-19 (including the Delta variant) was not reported in Tasmania until mid-October 2021 with subsequent community restrictions, including a three-day lockdown, shortly after (Dunlevie 2021). Since December 2021, when border restrictions lifted, there have been many more cases and new ways to manage them that do not involve physical distancing and lockdowns. But when we were collecting data, there were no reported cases in Tasmania and COVID-related restrictions were minimal despite the impacts of the pandemic being felt there.

Many participants thought the pandemic had led to people in Hobart becoming reclusive, while others cited the effects of physical distancing requirements and density limits on indoor events and many considered it a sound time to install the Melville Street parklet. One noted that ‘the streets are far emptier than they were 12, 18, or 20 months ago’ (#12) and added that ‘a lot of people … have reclused into a more sheltered lifestyle. I think coming into summer, it’s a good idea to try and get people out of their houses, reintroduce them to spending time in the community, reintroduce them to spending time outside’ (#12). That view was supported by opinions expressed by Hobart business owners, who described the city as a ghost town and by the Lord Mayor, as well as by the local council’s off-street parking occupancy figures (Sato 2022, no page).

One participant saw the parklet as a way to help the community stay strong: it’s ‘a good opportunity. If you are doing these kind of things, it involves street work, and we haven’t really got too many people going into the city’ (#16). That sentiment was shared by over a quarter of participants with comments such as: ‘I think it’s better to … build stuff while everything is a bit slowed down and take advantage of the time when it’s not so busy’ (#11) and ‘it’s probably a better time than ever to set this thing up for when we fully open up’ (#16).

On the potential benefits of constructing the parklet during the height of the pandemic, one participant said that ‘these temporary spaces can create environments in which people can hang out and still social distance. I don’t think it [the pandemic] should stop people from doing things like this’ (#5). Another saw the parklet as ‘important during the COVID-19 pandemic because there’s so many restrictions with indoor events and gatherings, so having an outdoor space to do that is really good because you can have a higher capacity, there’s less chance of transmission, there’s more space so you can have an increased number of people for the density limits as well’ (#22).

In the context of other T/T urbanism interventions developed elsewhere during the pandemic, Melville Street is unique in being situated at a distance from the more stringent restrictions associated with COVID. Research into T/T urbanism responses to the pandemic have tended to focus on interventions in cities where restrictions were more dramatic and opportunities for residents to leave their homes were reduced significantly (Honey-Rosés et al. 2021; Majewska et al. 2022). In Melbourne, there was an increase in parklets to accommodate physically distanced outdoor dining spaces (Stevens, Morley, and Dovey 2022b). However, local councils there and in Sydney sought to reclaim car parks converted into parklets during COVID lockdowns from businesses and/or charge fees for their use (Kelly 2021). In the United States, Gregg et al. (2022) have found that there was minimal public consultation and resistance to T/T urbanist projects that reallocated road space from vehicles, with media support for those interventions framing them as urgent and necessary in light of the pandemic. Noland, Iacobucci, and Zhang (2023) have established that the public in New Jersey was largely supportive of street closures for T/T urbanism interventions, despite concerns regarding traffic congestion. They have pointed to the need for more research to determine whether the public is willing to enact changes quickly and reactively during a crisis or whether there is an underlying desire to design streets for people as opposed to streets for cars. In Hobart, it appears that support for experimenting with streets for people and installing a temporary parklet on Melville Street was based on opportunistic perspectives that the pandemic afforded participants. As one said, ‘I think it would be positive and it’s a good time to introduce and try new things because you’ve almost got a blank … canvas or slate to start from and you’re not impacting on something that may already exist’ (#12).

Discussion and conclusion

Examples of T/T urbanist projects in Australia are now often government-led and consultant-guided and some are being championed by large organisations, including universities. That trend is in contrast to other such projects that capture its guerrilla roots – where interventions enacted by citizens and communities assert claims to the city by occupying and transforming under-utilised urban sites. It has also been suggested that the involvement of large organisational actors in T/T urbanism could undermine its continued potential to enhance innovation, community engagement, and local identity (Bishop and Williams 2012; Douglas 2018; Hou 2020; Mould 2014; Tonkiss 2013). Yet, the University of Tasmania’s proposal for the Melville Street parklet in the Hobart city centre was well-received – at least among most of our participants who thought the parklet would fit into what Hobart means to them and could be an innovative, inclusive, and interactive use of otherwise under-utilised city space.

Perceptions of Melville Street were often limited to the role it played in participants’ respective travel networks; they supported changes that the parklet could bring and opportunities to reduce use of cars in the city. Participants were clear that the parklet’s development should involve the residents of Hobart – and both consultations and the processes involved in development application assessments would have supported such engagement. Participants’ views in this regard reflect a strong sense of community in place. Indeed, place attachment and a desire to green the city were among the reasons participants supported the parklet. Interestingly, many participants also thought the parklet could entice people to spend more time in the city in an open street setting where the transmission of COVID-19 may be lessened because physical distancing was possible.

In another Australian capital city that, like Hobart, has a comparatively small population (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2021) and high level of car dependence, Weglarz (2018) documented the successful trial of Canberra’s first parklet in 2016. That intervention was embraced and provided a blueprint and pathway for more interventions of a similar kind. In Fremantle, the crowd-funded Wray Avenue Solar Parklet was purportedly successful in repurposing under-utilised road space to create a public space for the community (See Design Studio 2017) with the company behind that project designing similar parklets elsewhere in Perth (See Design Studio 2019). The specific potential for university-led parklets to engage local communities and serve public interests has now also been documented in Melbourne at RMIT University (Stevens et al. 2022a).

As it turned out, the Melville Street parklet proposal became wrapped up in a larger and ongoing debate about the university’s plans to relocate its suburban Sandy Bay operations into the Hobart CBD. For participants enthusiastic about the parklet and others who hoped to see streets developed in new ways, the parklet was a casualty of that debate and the development application was withdrawn with no sense of when it might be reactivated. Despite the development application’s withdrawal, the Melville Street parklet case study supports others’ findings about at least two matters. One is how T/T urbanism can garner public support to explore and engage with road space reallocation to increase pedestrianisation (Bertolini 2020; Hagen and Tennøy 2021; Rowe 2013). The other is how the pandemic has influenced support for and underpinned road space reallocation projects globally (Awad-Núñez et al. 2021; Nia 2021; Wright and Reardon 2021), including in Australia (Spennemann 2021). While Noland, Iacobucci, and Zhang (2023) have asked whether road space reallocation measures for people were simply quick reactions to a crisis, our research suggests there is an underlying desire to see streets designed for people, not traffic, even where the pandemic’s restrictive consequences have been less evident. In forthcoming papers, we aim to contribute to more research on T/T urbanism by examining the media’s influence on the halt to the Melville Street proposal and by providing a post-mortem examination of the parklet’s current fate in the form of a qualitative analysis of interviews with experts involved in it. Meanwhile, this current case study adds to a growing literature on T/T urbanism in Australia by providing insights on how one intervention by one large organisation has been viewed by local residents in Tasmania’s capital.

Data availability statement

Data for this research were subject to requirements that participants be deidentified. For any questions about data, contact the authors.

Disclosure statement

Elaine Stratford is a full time professor at the University of Tasmania and, in 2022 and 2023, works one day a week on research in the University's Transformation Office. Her brief is to undertake critical research on aspects of the university’s decade-long change management process, including in relation to the planned move to the Hobart CBD.

Additional information

Funding

The research for this paper received no external funding.