ALAN KELSALL is heritage coordinator at Fremantle city council. In this week’s THINKING ALLOWED he argues the port city continues to struggle with the legacy of containerisation.

FREMANTLE was established as the port town for Perth and to this day is still WA’s major port. It’s a fact that underpins its distinct character and is the reason Fremantle evolved as a vibrant urban centre noticeably different from most other parts of the metropolitan area.

Since Fremantle was founded in 1829, the cornerstone of its economy was always its role as a port. Until about 40 years ago.

Then shipping containers changed life as we knew it in Freo

With Fremantle’s dependence on port operations, the introduction of containerisation in the 1970s brought profound changes. Containerisation saw a seismic shift in employment, both direct and indirect, and in the way goods were processed.

As a consequence, the interdependence between the harbour, city centre and surrounding residential areas was undermined and changed forever. This interdependence, a bit like any ecosystem in perfect balance, had been the driving force which sustained economic growth and development.

Affected everything

The overall effect of containerisation was not just limited to shipping and its associated industries but also the commercial, retail, social and residential vitality of the city. In short, it affected almost everything. The social and economic optimism that had sustained Fremantle’s earlier development was taken away very quickly.

A lot has happened since the ‘70s, but today we all almost unanimously agree on one thing,  the centre of Fremantle is in need of revitalisation. All well and good to say, but this will not be achieved if we don’t have sustainable economic growth.

Neither will it be achieved if the centre of Fremantle becomes solely a memorial to the past, effectively relegating Fremantle to a museum town, a place for tourists to reflect on a city lost in time and for locals to lament the good old days.

Fresh thinking puts the mistakes of the past behind us.

So the question remains, how do we revitalise Fremantle without losing its famous character, particularly when required changes are substantial and the industry that was the life-force of that character (the port) no longer makes the contribution to the life of the city it once did?

This is not a simple question to answer. What is simple is that change is vital and all cities must evolve at points in their history to overcome various challenges, provided change is managed in ways that strengthen rather than diminish the character of the city.

Achieving sustainable economic growth in Fremantle has an added degree of difficulty. Not only do we have to compensate for the losses caused by the decline of our port-related industries in the 1970s, we must also turn around the unsuccessful results of town planning changes in that same period. Planning of that era sought rigid zoning, low density and the promotion of private transport, all of which further drained the vitality of the city centre by increasing vehicle traffic. This has resulted in an ever-increasing strain on the city’s limited infrastructure.

History shows these planning decisions failed to create the sort of places intended. Nor did they achieve the predicted economic outcomes. They also resulted in strong opposition to change taking hold in Fremantle and are why heritage conservation became synonymous with a fear of change and an “anti-development at all costs” attitude by some people. This justified fear has seen ongoing and fierce debates between pro-heritage and pro-development groups in Fremantle since the 1970s.

Unfortunately, all this has resulted in is a self-perpetuating, mutually destructive spiral of decline. The deliberately divisive nature of the campaigns surrounding proposed developments has meant conservation and sustainable developments were never seen as complementary to each other. Rather, the two were seen as opposing forces. Current signs of revival demonstrate that attitudes have changed and a fresh perspective on how heritage and development can work together is beginning to gain strength.

It must be said, however, there remains some resistance to this new way of thinking, a legacy of the past that some people find hard to shake.

So, where to now?

With proper understanding of the historic context and sensitivity to the quality of place, new buildings and designs can complement and enhance heritage buildings.

Good urban planning also now recognises the importance of designing places for people and this is a key consideration of any new development decision in Fremantle. Good urban design is a powerful tool for achieving a higher quality of life, greater economic vitality and a more efficient use of resources. It’s key to making places where people want to live and which will nurture economic success, and is part of the strategic vision for Fremantle council.

Pro-active role

The City of Fremantle takes a pro-active role in the planning process by encouraging applicants, especially for major projects or sensitive sites, to organise pre-application discussions with officers and consultations with the design advisory committee as early as possible, preferably before commencing the design process.

So the vision is there, the process is in place and the will is strong, but as a community we have to continue to shift our way of thinking away from the combative, adversarial style that many of us have grown up with.

Heritage buildings can coexist and thrive beside new, economically viable development and while it’s impossible to replicate the role formerly played by the port, the development of new higher-density mixed-use areas such as between Victoria Quay and Kings Square, within easy reach of the train station, can promote change to re-establish the city centre.

It’s a long road to recovery but unlike over the past 40 years there is now a clear vision and opportunities presenting themselves.