Introduction

At the beginning of the twentieth century ten percent of the world was urban. According to Leitmann (1999, p.4) about half the world’s people live in cities or towns, form the “engines of national and regional economic growth” and are major consumers of resources and generators of waste. As Hough (2004) suggests, daily existence is spent in surroundings that are designed to conceal the processes that sustain life. Many urban communities are insulated against the real impacts of individual and institutional decision-making and actions upon local environments and ultimately upon the planet; many more are over-exposed to hazardous wastes, poverty and crushing inequities. It has been argued that both the over- and under- privileged are disconnected from place and that symptoms of dis-placement and placelessness are rife (Casey, 2001, Relph, 1976). Diminished trust is one such symptom.

Trust is a small word with significant impact. It is essential for social well-being and without it there is increasing need for rules and regulations, enforcement and investment in law and order (Australia Government Productivity Commission, 2003, Bullen and Onyx, 1998, Cox, 1995, Fukuyama, 1995, Hough, 2007, Innes and Booher, 2004, Marris, 1998, Putnam, 2000, Schneekloth and Shibley, 1995, Seamon, 2000). Lack of trust can be measured by how people retreat into their homes – fearing the outside world, crime and minimising social interaction. Streets and neighbourhoods become lonely, isolated and dangerous places. At the same time, because of diminished trust, citizens look to others – and most especially to governments – to address the symptoms of alienation and anomie, among them anti social behaviour, traffic and crime.

Leitmann (1999, p.20) also regards cities as part of the solution to social, environmental and economic problems affecting quality of life and ecosystem integrity: “the concentration of money, brains and organisation in cities also results in a higher effective demand for environmental quality and can lead to pressure on government and the private sector for remedial and preventive action”. Thus, where

trust is present the challenges of sustainability to which Leitmann refers can be addressed, because citizens and governments understand that participation and partnerships are crucial. Local governments have an opportunity to lead the way in this work because they are constitutionally charged with such tasks among local communities, their citizens, businesses and organisations.

Mechanisms for local government and local community partnerships and participation require forms of social capital beyond trust: social networks forming the norms of reciprocity not least among them (Bullen and Onyx, 1998, Cox, 1995, Putnam, 2000). These networks of reciprocity exist best where people who know and do things are able and willing to share knowledge and make decisions for mutual benefits. The importance of mutuality is evident in relationships that develop throughout a community and, for example, where “voluntary organisations thrive as they appear to be associated with positive qualities such as innovation, flexibility, loyalty and horizontal bonding linkages” (McQueen and Lyons, 2001, p.4). In disadvantaged communities, where some people may feel powerless or disenfranchised in relation to decision-making and action, these ‘mutual organisations’ especially provide a sense of personal control, connectedness and ownership that would otherwise be missing. “Mutual organisations enhance a community’s capacity to organise… [and] provide connections and membership by definition can be used as an indicator of social agency” (McQueen and Lyons, 2001, p.4). Such symptoms of trust – social networks, reciprocity, shared means and ends for mutual benefit – are elements of civil society more generally. In the 1995 Boyer Lectures3 Cox (1995, pp.1-2) defined civil society as a state in which “we trust each other and face our futures optimistically … [and] recognise the supreme importance of social connections which include plenty of robust goodwill to sustain difference and debate”. She drew attention of the threat to a more civilised future by the dominance of homo economicus in public policy, and argued that it produced destructive levels of self interest and competing individualism, eroding strong democracies and a healthy separation between the state and class interests (Cox, 1995, Flyvbjerg, 1998, Friedmann, 1998, Fukuyama, 1995, Marris, 1998,

3

The Boyer Lectures are a series of radio lectures that began in 1959 then called the Australian Broadcasting Commission Lectures. In 1961 the name was changed in honour of the late Sir Richard Boyer, chairman of the ABC during whose chairmanship of the ABC the lectures were conceived.

Sandercock, 1998b). She suggested that alternative paths were possible: an emphasis on quality of life and life satisfaction indicators rather than on economic indicators; better governance systems and processes to value trust, reciprocity, mutuality, co- operation, social fabric and social capital; a repositioning of time as a precious resource. Noting that being time-poor is the modern epidemic of western societies around the world, and acknowledging that time is required for public engagement, Cox (1995, p.4) argued that pressures on work and family erode opportunities for people to be active in civil society, and for her this problem was particularly important to address, because “citizens must take some responsibility for changing what we do not like”. For most citizens, it is at the local level, in local places and through local governmental systems and structures that any such engagement in change will occur.

In the rest of this chapter I take up these issues with reference to place and place- making and urban design, and contextualise these general issues by describing first the place that is Glenorchy and second the governmental structures that inform place- making there.