Eight problems with the Surfers Paradise Revitalisation plan

The Council never defines the character of Surfers Paradise

Surfers Paradise is fun city. It is not like other Goldcoast suburbs and it doesn’t care what the others think – we are too busy having fun. You want fancy, go to Main Beach, you want corporate sophistication, go to Broadbeach, you want quiet coastal, there’s plenty to choose from. But you want fun, come to the fun capital. The place with city buzz and beachside chill.

The Council’s plan never tries to understand and celebrate our unique offer. The Surfers Paradise difference. Instead it pines for a veneer of sophistication better suited to somewhere else.

A failure to understand the people & culture

In all the documentation there is never a serious attempt to understand what makes the people of Surfers Paradise tick – the residents or the visitors. The culture of Surfers Paradise is never examined or articulated. The closest it comes to it, is this prosaic run down.  

This is troubling when leading with statements like

Even more troubling are statements in their documentation like…

There it is. The big give away. Calling us "wild and wacky". A fundamental misunderstanding of who we are and what drives us to live here. A comment from a lazy observer who has not the words because they haven't done the work.

It is easy to infer that there is little appreciation for, or recognition of, the existing healthy and active cultures that drive the energy of Surfers Paradise. For those on our shores a dip in the ocean, an early morning surf – these are cultural pursuits that rival any high art. The Council’s statement shows a failure to understand the people and the patronising idea that you need "high culture" to "create a cultural experience".

By failing to understand the people all the other guiding principles lack any meaningful direction. This leads to borrowing ideas and jumping to conclusions with no cultural fit. Activations that are misplaced. Underwhelming outcomes.

‍

Imported models leads to over reach

Strøget in Copenhagen, Times Square in New York and George Street in Sydney are pointed to as proof that closing the Esplanade to traffic will work but those examples have nothing in common with Surfers Paradise. Landlocked streets lined with shops with no natural attractions, surrounded by alternative routes – these models do not apply to a sunny beach side Esplanade with no shops.

It is these models that are used to justify “pedestrianisation” of the Esplanade – cutting the road and installing a mall. This is a stunning dismissal of what makes Surfers Paradise tick.

They promised Times Square and we got New York gridlock

They brought a mall to the Esplanade and the city gets a geographical barrier. A cut in the circulation connecting the populous eastern edge of the city to the rest of Surfers Paradise and beyond. Surfers Paradise split into a north or south of Cavill divide. With only two single lane one way routes or the highway, local traffic crawls to a standstill.  

Lack of a clear objective

To reference Jane Jacobs from earlier, it is people not buildings that we must fit our plans.  
The first problem is vision. There isn’t one. No understanding of the people = no clear purpose. The closest to a clear objective we can find is to “make it more attractive to locals” and even locals is poorly defined.
The simplest brief could have been: “to enhance the Surfers Paradise lifestyle and show it off to the world.” Instead, the project is reduced to strategies without a direction. This creates an inspiration vacuum into which borrowed ideas, pet projects and personal ambitions are thrown.

Maybe this is why the public campaign is so vague: “Surfers Paradise is Changing.” It doesn’t say what we’re changing into, because they can’t say.

The great blanding  

Without a rallying vision we get borrowed suburban solutions feeding a design that is bland, suburban and charmless.
Surfers Paradise is special. It’s a mini Manhattan on the beach in a world beating sub tropical climate where the ocean is the same temperature as your air-conditioner. It is a national draw card.
It commands a unique approach. It deserves its own story be told confident in its own iconography. People should look at the design and go yeah, that’s what Surfers Paradise would do!

It’s not this.

No value given to the scenic drive

By calling the Esplanade a “rat run,” council dismissed its true value. They overlooked a major traffic artery, our scenic drive – a shared experience that defines Surfers Paradise. Ascribing zero value to this asset has allowed the council to erase it to make way for a mall.  

The design doesn’t match the words

The Council’s concept plan for Surfers Paradise looks good on paper. It promises four big strategies: Open to All, Supercharge the Experience, Grow the Green, Amplify Brand Surfers.
But when you look at the design visuals — when you see what they actually plan to build — it becomes clear that there is a chasm between the promises and the design.
The words in the report are bold, but the visuals are timid. Models that have no relevance here are imposed quashing our envied vibrance, jamming the city.

The opportunity

It doesn’t have to be this way.

The council’s own documents show they know Surfers Paradise is special. The failure is in not understanding the culture, which lead to no clear vision, which lead to borrowed solutions, and weak design. Surfers Paradise doesn’t need “change for change’s sake.” It needs a clear vision. And it deserves design that delivers it.

‍