Adelaide is finally seeing a plan to transform the city with a new approach to housing, better public transport and better use of the parklands, but former Integrated Design Commissioner Tim Horton wonders if we have the tools to implement it.

In October 2012, John Rau addressed a packed room of students, policy makers, designers, media, residents and many others at Tuxedo Cat to launch the last exhibition of 5000+; an extraordinary pilot program that brought people together to think, design and deliver a vision and master plan for inner Adelaide.

See a video from the night here.

Caught up in the moment, Rau insisted: “We can’t lose the momentum. We cannot sit back here now and say, ‘Isn’t this fantastic? We’ve done these marvellous things. We’re having a wine, having a piece of cheese and then we all go home.’”

Rau said 5000+ proved that Adelaide’s 30 Year Plan needed a rethink. That rethink has now rolled out over the last few weeks in a transport plan, housing plan and parklands open space strategy for inner Adelaide that has the potential to genuinely transform the whole city to a version of its better self.

John Rau has made good on his words that night to maintain the momentum, and while we can all expect government to claim some credit, the real credit lies with the diverse Adelaide community that helped develop the backbone for these plans in the first place.

5000+ asked how we could grow the city and improve it at the same time. Answers included better light rail, safe bikeways and a transport network that gave options beyond the car – many of the things we see in the integrated transport and land use study. Overdue, and possibly an overreach, sure. But the plan shows what we’ve lacked for so long and explains why we got Superways in the past, not the better public transport we all want.

The transport plan is anchored by five new tram lines revitalising major roads, a regionally connected rail and a nod to bikes.

There’s no time or resources to develop new product so we build the same 3-bedroom house – isolated from shops, schools and public transport.

5000+ also found we want choice in well designed housing that is connected to services, green space and suited to our environment. So, great to see good design and design promotion is part of the Housing in the City policy.

The majority of us want to live close to shops, schools and public transport. But the failure of conventional land economics in Adelaide means we only get that in established communities where we squeeze more out of last century’s infrastructure. Larger houses on separate blocks in established streets attract prices many of us can’t afford. Lack of choice freezes us out of where we want to be; in our inner metro communities that – let’s face it – still need investment and renewal. Mile End’s light industrial needs new life, Unley’s laneways need people to make them safe, and Prospect and Norwood can still grow so every shop is open, locally owned and has the heaving life of an Argo.

See what better designed precincts might look like here.

Housing choice means more diversity to better suit where we are at certain times in our lives. It means a range of sizes and prices. This is hard to do in the new swathes of farmland already released for project homes. Here, builders and their tradies work on ever-decreasing margins in an effort to compete with markets interstate and offshore. There’s no time or resources to develop new product so we build the same three-bedroom house – isolated from shops, schools and public transport.

Housing in the City outlines the correction our market needs. 18,500 new dwellings are shared across seven council areas; ringing the city. Better design standards; promotion and education are there to encourage different, better buildings.

But today’s housing is the result of entrenched economic forces and it will take firm resolve to shift an entire industry. Housing in the City can make that shift if it’s also understood as an industry innovation policy. Government can use this policy to drive practical research and development in construction innovation. We can use our state forest reserves to grow new export markets for healthier, high performance housing. Pre-fabricated panels of low carbon laminated wood in place of metal, plastic and foam. Imagine it – a model of urban development built on planting trees and growing our regional economies at the same time.

More than ever we need to get this right. And getting it right is not about rhetoric.

A third finding of 5000+ was that we want our city leaders to work together – cooperatively – for the long term. So it’s good to see that partnership with local councils is assumed in the greening of the parklands. Here, finance and governance become critical levers. Levies on development in Councils around the city can fund landscaping in the parklands, along with amenities like lighting and toilets, cafes and great spaces to watch your child’s soccer match.

These are all good intentions. So what do we need to do to drive these good intentions in to operation? We have to acknowledge that our weakness lies in implementation. More than ever we need to get this right. And getting it right is not about rhetoric. It’s about the hard slog of reform that allows implementation without the usual bureaucratic capture that dilutes what’s possible … to what’s easy.

Despite good work to establish a co-ordinated delivery authority in Renewal SA, we’re yet to see them issue expressions of interest that value innovation or best practice, or include explicit criteria or weightings to tenders that insist only innovators need apply.

The role of the Government Architect must be strong, vocal and visible if it’s to provide design leadership; prepare guidance material, commission research and engage with developers and planning teams early to embed good design long before the legal framework is triggered – in our bus stops, our bike lanes, our apartment buildings and new parks, our shops and public buildings, our signs, our schools and all those things we’re yet to need. In a fully evolved model, the Government Architect may also act as an intermediary to improve how communities are involved, and when.

But the Government Architect can’t do it alone, or in the face of subterfuge and opposition. Right now, around 3% of all buildings are designed by someone with the skill to do it. Your neighbour’s dentist, gardener or accountant can design the apartment buildings and townhouses gazetted in this plan. For all the talk, the reality is that South Australia has no minimum standards to drive better design. In NSW, mandating minimum standards lifted quality, boosted the apartment market and gave Sydney a new lifestyle to desire. We need minimum standards now.

Fueling it all, we need a reformist zeal for transparency and data-driven open government in our departments of planning, transport and infrastructure, and those responsible for fostering industry innovation. We need to reboot the means by which we engage if we want to build trust, streamline good design and send the B graders back to the drawing board.

Finally, we need an integrating force that can bring together housing, transport planning, infrastructure and finance, with the continual waves of research and reform we’ll need if we want to use this time as a means to grow.

These will be great reforms if they are brought to life. Implemented together, there is every sign that these reforms could propel a new era of social and economic growth for Adelaide and South Australia. But a closer look suggests that while design has entered our vocabulary, we lack the infrastructure we need to deliver anything more than … more of the same.

Tim Horton is the former South Australian Integrated Design Commissioner. His previous piece for InDaily was How Holden shaped Adelaide.