1. Activity Centre
Performance Measurement Toolkit
PCA „Making Density Work‟ Forum

2. Do you enjoy centres like this?

3. Or this?

4. Question:
How do we plan for vibrant centres that are not all
competing for the same diminishing retail
catchment?

6. 7.75
6.80
6.50
7.00 7.01
7.40
6.30
8.10
8.30
7.50
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
Hutt St, Adelaide

7. Toolkit
 Developed to assist
planning move away from
retail floorspace caps
ActivityCentre
PerformanceToolkit
 Metrics form part of
WA State Planning
Policy Activity
Centres for Perth &
Peel
 Used by local
government for Local
Commercial and
Activity Centre
Strategies (LCACS)  Used by centre owners to
obtain approval for
redevelopment/expansion
– but also seeing
commercial benefits

8. Hutt Street, Adelaide
Economic Sustainability: 7.01 out of 10
Urban Form: 7.50 out of 10

9. Activity
Intensity
Metrics:
 Residential density
 Employment density
6.80
4.80
6.20
7.70
7.60
6.80
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00
Average Mainstreet
Claremont
Balmain
Fitzroy
Subiaco
Hutt St
Intensity

10. Activity
Diversity
7.75
6.25
8.00
7.30
7.90
7.75
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00
Average Mainstreet
Claremont
Balmain
Fitzroy
Subiaco
Hutt St
Diversity

11. Employment
6.75
5.50
6.75
7.75
9.50
6.50
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00
Average Mainstreet
Claremont
Balmain
Fitzroy
Subiaco
Hutt St
Employment

12. Accessibility
8.25
7.25
6.50
8.25
8.25
7.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00
Average Mainstreet
Claremont
Balmain
Fitzroy
Subiaco
Hutt St
Accessibility

13. Urban
Quality
5.83
8.30
7.20
5.80
7.40
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00
Average Mainstreet
Claremont
Balmain
Subiaco
Hutt St
Quality

14. Urban
Amenity
7.19
6.70
6.60
8.30
6.30
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00
Average Mainstreet
Claremont
Balmain
Subiaco
Hutt St
Amenity

15. Mobility
7.86
7.50
8.10
6.90
8.10
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00
Average Mainstreet
Claremont
Balmain
Subiaco
Hutt St
Mobility

16. Safety
7.34
8.50
8.30
7.40
8.30
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00
Average Mainstreet
Claremont
Balmain
Subiaco
Hutt St
Safety

17. 5.95
6.86
8.31
7.01
7.75
7.55
7.10
7.50
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
Claremont Balmain Subiaco Hutt St
Economic
Urban Form

18. Why are these metrics useful?
 Economic metrics relate to the number and diversity of
users, and their ability to utilise the centre
 Urban form metrics relate to attractiveness of centre to
users - visitors, residents or businesses

19. „Place Counts‟
Mobile App

20. Method of Use
1. Count physical features (using toolkit metrics)
2. Assess user feelings about place (using iPad/iPhone)
3. Analyse how well public feeling correlates with
investment in physical features
4. Plan and make changes to physical environment to
maximise benefit to the public
5. Collect user feedback again to verify the benefits of the
changes

21. Quality Dimension
Mobility Dimension
Safety Dimension

22. Benefits
 Continuous source of user feedback
 Direct public input rather than use of “experts”
 Cheaper than intercept surveys
 Matches physical investment with public experience
Investment in CCTV  Feeling of Safety
Investment in awnings  Feeling of Comfort
Investment in bike paths  Feeling of Convenience
Q
$
Return on
Investment

23. Common goal of successful centres
 Centres are more sustainable, active and utilised, and
therefore more successful
 Greater commercial revenue, better places, greater
labour productivity, uplift in property values, greater
employment self-sufficiency
 More efficient and effective urban form
 Goal shared by all of us

24. Who Problem Solution
Everyone
Decision-making without an
evidence base
Create a database of centre
assessments using a consistent set of
metrics
Aspire to be like successful
example centres but not sure
how
Learn lessons and implement actions
from other cities and centres through
national benchmarking
Precinct
Association
Witness the day-to-day issues
but lack control over the big
picture
Get better informed through centre
assessment - to take action in areas
of control, and influence decision
making
Centre Owner
Need approval to redevelop but
don‟t know how to demonstrate
wider benefits of the proposal
Assess the current centre, and assess
how the DA will affect future
performance against each metric
How can we use this analysis?

25. Who Problem Solution
Planning
Authority
Want to maximise the potential
of urban development and
infrastructure investment but
lack criteria for decision-making
Assess the current centre, and
assess how the masterplan will
affect future performance against
each metric
Local
Government
Caught between state
government policy and targets,
and private sector development
pressures.
Measure the performance of each
centre in the LGA network to
determine their role & vision within
a Local Activity Centre Strategy
State
Government
Need to focus resources and
set sub-regional targets without
knowledge of individual centre
performance
Assess highest performing and
most economically valuable centres
and fund infrastructure to maximise
their wider economic and social
impact

26. In Conclusion
 Common goal is to create
successful, interesting, accessible centres
 Different tools and levers available
 Common starting point is consistent measurement
 Trialling Place Counts – see us after for details