Those driving Adelaide’s vibrancy agenda have become so focussed on the means – infrastructure, funding, legislative reform – that they are in danger of forgetting the end. The most important thing in increasing vibrancy is people.

It is people, all types of people, who create vibrancy, stimulate economies and make things happen.

Joanne Cys. Photo: Nat Rogers/InDaily

All citizens contribute to the activity of cities in myriad ways.  We know that the creation and development of robust, responsible and lively economic, social and cultural environments must be considered in relation to the contribution and characteristics of the people who will drive and benefit from them.

The recent release of the Adelaide Fine Grain Report should be cause for the city to pause for a moment and reconsider our direction.

The report finds that many strategies for city revitalisation and new built form haven’t adequately considered the people at their heart.

“Investment in buildings, infrastructure, design and landscaping all contribute but each one alone will not necessarily reinvigorate the city. All strategies for city revitalisation…could be driven by their capacity to attract people and generate the desired increase in city centre economic and cultural activity,” the report says.

Buildings and infrastructure cannot be relied on to create vibrancy.  It is critical to think about our built environment in in connection with the experience of people, and most importantly in connection with experiences that are civic, democratic and, as often as possible, free and accessible for all.

The Fine Grain report reviews the last decade of plans and strategies from our decision-makers, and could have been subtitled “Connecting the Dots”.  Its realistic, independent critique of what we have been thinking and strategising (but not necessarily doing) culminates in the fundamental point that it is people who make things – economies, cultures, societies or places – vibrant.

It may be difficult for some to accept the concept of vibrancy as being more people in smaller spaces.  Adelaideans, in particular, are used to streets so wide herds of cattle could be driven though them (as they once were); parklands so spacious they are bigger than New York City’s Central Park; and a main city square so vast it almost four times larger than Venice’s Piazza San Marco.

Who would have thought too much space could be perceived as a problem?  It’s not; there just aren’t enough people to activate it.

The Fine Grain report also alerts us to the quality of authenticity.  It reassures the doubtful, wishful, cynical and risk-averse that a lot of what Adelaide already has is valuable and unique, and can potentially contribute to the future vibrancy we desire for our city and state, their economies and communities.

Locally distinctive authenticity doesn’t have to be restricted to the architectural characteristics of Adelaide’s Victorian buildings.

Contemplating these notions of authenticity, history, meaning, place and, of course, people requires examples.

The combined potential of the Adelaide Oval redevelopment and the new footbridge across the Torrens is worthy of discussion in relation to aspirations for vibrancy. The Oval and footbridge projects are not only about the physical structures; they should be driven and informed by the very human, historical, meaningful, entertaining, enjoyable, democratic, cultural and vibrant activity of people going to the footy.  Sure, it’s a tradition, but more importantly, it is something to do, something public, something active, something vibrant for tens of thousands of people, all at once, on game days.

What about on other days?  What the Oval attract and retain people, or will it be closed on non-event days, as it currently is?  Will it provide something else for people to do, some other reason to use the footbridge?  Could the very excellent SACA cricket museum be opened and enhanced by other services – tours and food, maybe – to attract people?  Could it feature temporary exhibition material from other sporting organisations or clubs?

Locally distinctive authenticity doesn’t have to be restricted to the architectural characteristics of Adelaide’s Victorian buildings.

The new Adelaide Oval. How will it engage with people when sport isn’t on?

What else could encourage activity? What will be provided in the forecourt at the point of arrival from the footbridge to encourage people to linger before and after a game and on non-game days?  What about the immediate surrounds – could there be an Adelaide Oval sporting heritage walk?  Could the playing fields be enhanced with more fixed exercise and warm-up equipment for joggers and other active people?  Could more small grandstands and change room facilities be provided?

“People will only be attracted to remain in a space if the space offers something to do…people are drawn to other people and people go to places where there are attractions,” states the Fine Grain report.

Buildings and infrastructure cannot be relied on to create vibrancy.  It is critical to think about our built environment in in connection with the experience of people, and most importantly in connection with experiences that are civic, democratic and, as often as possible, free and accessible for all.

Joanne Cys is an associate professor in interior architecture at the University of South Australia and a Design Institute of Australia Design ambassador.