The following is a condensed summary of the findings of the study of public space in Barangaroo.
Governance and Control
Barangaroo’s redevelopment reflects Sydney’s long-term planning trends, where state-led governance has entrenched corporate influence in urban space management. The state government dominated decision-making from design to ongoing management via Placemaking NSW, prioritising economic value over public interest. This consolidation of power has led to restrictive policies that limit protest rights and marginalise vulnerable groups, reinforcing a quasi-privatised governance model seen since Darling Harbour’s redevelopment.
Public Space: Quality and Accessibility
While Barangaroo maintains its public space footprint, increased commercial development has strained its amenities. The design prioritizes aesthetic appeal and economic viability, limiting inclusivity and co-production by the public. Though Indigenous representation exists in artistic elements, community participation remains limited, reflecting a broader trend of symbolic inclusion rather than meaningful engagement.
Urban Citizenship and Rights to the City
Barangaroo’s redevelopment raises the question: Who is the space for? The emphasis on a global financial hub over a community-centred precinct has resulted in controlled, heavily policed spaces that limit accessibility and human rights. Sydney’s public space contradictions—where vagrancy is criminalised while curated events market inclusivity—illustrate broader urban citizenship struggles. Increasing managerial governance and private-sector influence restrict public agency, challenging whether truly public space can exist within a neoliberal urban framework.
Limitations and Future Considerations
The study faced barriers to government engagement, limiting insights into decision-making. Additionally, underrepresentation of marginalized groups underscores gaps in public space discourse. Future research should broaden stakeholder engagement, particularly with Indigenous and disadvantaged communities, and extend timelines to assess long-term urban space usage.
The Future of Public Space in Sydney
Barangaroo exemplifies public space commodification, but it also provides lessons for more inclusive planning. Future governance must emphasize public engagement, equitable access, and transparency while addressing global corporate influences. Informal community-driven reclamation efforts could reintroduce fine-grain urbanism, countering exclusionary trends (Bodnar, 2015). As digitisation and virtual spaces evolve, the role of public space will remain a contested issue in urban planning.
Barangaroo’s site must be understood within the broader context of settler-colonialism, where urban landscapes remain tied to a history of dispossession (Porter, 2018). Despite the Mabo decision (1992) acknowledging stolen Indigenous land, colonial violence is still erased from planning discourse. Early planning efforts, such as Melbourne and Adelaide’s town grids, are celebrated while obscuring their foundation in land theft (Porter, 2018).
Sydney’s waterways were central to colonial control before land settlement, shaping urban expansion through “nautico-imperial” logics (Rogers, 2022). Yet, planning still fails to integrate Indigenous perspectives, reinforcing their exclusion from contemporary urban governance. The myth of Indigenous disappearance persists, despite evidence that many adapted to urban life rather than relocating (Irish, 2017).
This exclusion extends to redevelopment projects like Melbourne’s Docklands and Port Adelaide, where Indigenous identity is reduced to symbolic gestures (Oakley & Johnson, 2013). By confining indigeneity to the past, urban planning precludes Indigenous agency in shaping contemporary cities. Over time, a pattern of colonial forgetting has systematically removed Indigenous voices from governance, planning, and academia.
Sydney’s Planning History and Governance
Sydney’s urban development has evolved through shifting planning paradigms, from Governor Macquarie’s (1810–1821) early zoning efforts (Hu, 2012) to post-WWII ad hoc expansion. The 1980s–1990s saw a shift toward neoliberal planning, prioritising finance and tourism over public interest (Punter, 2005). Barangaroo’s redevelopment exemplifies these trends, marked by privatisation and limited public accountability (Jabour, 2015).
A key mechanism enabling this is the Unsolicited Proposals (USP) process, where private developers bypass standard planning laws and public consultation (Rogers & Gibson, 2023). This framework reinforces elite influence over urban space, marginalizing broader community interests.
While Barangaroo has been widely studied from a governance perspective, little research examines how these policies affect public space use. Addressing these issues requires an inclusive planning approach, ensuring Indigenous perspectives and public interests are actively integrated into urban development.
Privatisation remains one of the most studied and impactful forces shaping public space development and governance. Public space, while valued for its social and cultural contributions, often lacks direct measurability in economic terms, relegating it to a lower priority in urban planning (Low, 2023). Additionally, the taken-for-granted nature of public spaces results in their appreciation only after they are commodified or redeveloped for commercial purposes. This process, often linked to neoliberal urbanism, has been analyzed extensively since the 1980s, with recurrent concerns over the gradual erosion of genuinely public spaces (Mitchell, 2017).
Commodification and the Gentrification Frontier
Privatisation often materializes through commodification, where spaces become embedded in capital accumulation processes. Sorkin (1989) describes this as the “Disneyfication” of urban centers, seen in the transformation of downtown areas into sanitized, consumer-driven environments, the emergence of mall-based neighborhoods, and the proliferation of skybridges and underground tunnels that disconnect pedestrian life from the streets. In New York City, a widely studied example, zoning incentives allowed developers to create Privately Owned Public Spaces (POPS) in exchange for increased building height and density. However, these spaces, while nominally public, often impose restrictive access policies, extensive surveillance, and exclusionary management practices (Nemeth, 2009). The privatization of public spaces also aligns with broader urban securitization trends, where heightened policing and surveillance cater to affluent populations and real estate interests rather than fostering inclusivity (Vigneswaran et al., 2017).
Governance and Public Accountability
Privatisation is facilitated by governance models that minimize or bypass public consultation. Schulze-Seeger (2023) highlights how planning councils and development organizations often limit citizen influence in decision-making, shifting the purpose of public spaces toward commercial rather than collective interests. This phenomenon is evident in cases like Allianz Park in Munich, where public feedback was excluded from redevelopment plans, and in Australia’s Unsolicited Proposal policy, which allows private firms to propose urban projects without open competition or community input (Rogers & Gibson, 2023). These shifts align with a broader neoliberal logic in urban governance, where market efficiency is prioritized over democratic engagement.
Privatisation and Urban Citizenship
Low (2023) identifies key dimensions of public space—physical form, ownership, governance, access, symbolic meaning, and political activity—all of which are shaped by privatisation. The relationship between ownership and access is particularly significant; while streets and sidewalks typically remain the most accessible spaces, parks and plazas with private funding often impose spatial exclusions through surveillance and policing. This dynamic is evident in spaces like Central Park, where heavy surveillance can deter marginalized groups, and in gated communities, which explicitly exclude those deemed undesirable (Iveson, 2018).
The exclusionary nature of privatised public spaces has direct implications for urban citizenship. Nemeth (2007) found that across 163 public spaces in New York, private ownership curtailed the rights of marginalized groups, undermining their ability to participate fully in civic life. Davis (2006) extends this critique, framing exclusion as a mechanism of capital accumulation that actively displaces certain populations. However, some scholars argue that privatization can also generate civic benefits, such as job creation, improved urban aesthetics, and enhanced safety perceptions (Gałkowski & Antosz, 2022). Mitchell (2017) further examines how privately managed public spaces often employ curated programming—such as corporate-sponsored cultural events—to promote engagement while maintaining control over acceptable uses. Thus, the relationship between privatisation and publicness is complex, shaped by trade-offs between market-driven governance and democratic accessibility.
The “End of Public Space” Debate
The theoretical discourse on privatisation frequently engages with the idea of the “end of public space,” a concept popularized in the 1990s amid growing concerns over its commodification (Bodnar, 2015). Mitchell (2017) applies Lefebvre’s (1991) theory of abstract space, arguing that capitalism inevitably transforms public spaces into exchange-value commodities, subordinating their social function to economic imperatives. This abstraction manifests in restrictive regulations, securitization, and even the spatial management of protests, where authorities negotiate with activists to designate pre-approved areas for demonstrations (McPhail et al., 1998). While these constraints suggest a diminishing public realm, counter-movements—such as urban activism, public art interventions, and the use of social media in mobilization—demonstrate resistance to privatisation trends (Mitchell, 2017; Low, 2023).
Belina (2012) offers a critical perspective on the “end of public space” thesis, arguing that public space itself has always been subject to exclusionary power structures. Rather than lamenting its decline, he suggests that scholars should focus on addressing structural inequalities that hinder equitable access. This study contributes to this debate by analyzing how privatisation manifests in Australian cities, assessing its impact on accessibility and urban citizenship.
Securitisation and the Surveillance Paradigm
A key dimension of privatisation is the securitisation of public space, which intensified following events like the Arab Spring, where urban squares became focal points for political mobilization (Jebnoun, 2022). Foucault (1979) conceptualized this spatial regulation as a function of neoliberal governance, where the perception of constant surveillance fosters self-regulation among urban inhabitants. This extends into contemporary urban planning, where defensive architecture, biometric surveillance, and predictive policing reinforce socio-economic stratification.
The post-Cold War era saw a surge in militarized urban design, justified by narratives of public safety (Hess & Mandhan, 2023). In New York City, the response to vehicular attacks in the 2010s led to the “fortification” of high-profile public spaces, installing security barriers that altered their usability. These interventions, while aimed at enhancing safety, also serve as mechanisms of spatial control, restricting spontaneous public gatherings and limiting political expression.
The proliferation of surveillance technologies—ranging from facial recognition to algorithm-driven policing—raises concerns over privacy, discrimination, and due process (Heaven, 2020). Jacobs et al. (2024) describe the emergence of “AI-cologies” in urban security, where automated surveillance systems operate with minimal public oversight. The risks associated with these technologies have prompted regulatory responses, such as Australia’s legal action against Clearview AI for privacy violations (Matulionyte, 2024). However, the broader implications of AI-driven securitisation on urban citizenship remain unresolved, necessitating further scrutiny.
Public spaces are essential urban commons, distinct from private property and typically state-owned. They facilitate social interaction, economic activity, and ecological benefits, while also serving as sites for democratic expression. Historically, their functions have evolved from the Greek agora—centres for civic discourse—to industrial marketplaces and modern parks. Contemporary research categorises public space functions into domains such as social justice, recreation, environmental sustainability, informal economies, and cultural identity. The concept of “cosmopublic” spaces emphasises their role in fostering interactions among diverse urban groups, reinforcing social cohesion despite everyday frictions.
Contestation and Accessibility
Public spaces are inherently contested due to competing interests among stakeholders. As Mitchell (2017) argues, questions of for whom and for what purpose these spaces exist remain central to urban discourse. Planning objectives like safety, accessibility, and order can lead to exclusionary practices. “Hostile architecture,” such as anti-homeless design elements, exemplifies how spatial regulation marginalises certain groups. Similarly, the privatisation of space through corporate sponsorships or Business Improvement Districts (BIDs) often introduces semi-public zones with restricted access. Even well-intended interventions—such as tree-planting for environmental justice—can trigger “green gentrification,” raising property values and displacing vulnerable communities, a phenomenon termed “sustainaphrenia” (Checker, 2020).
Governance Models and Urban Management
Governance structures significantly impact the accessibility and experience of public spaces. Zamanifard et al. (2018) identify four models:
Traditional governance – State-controlled management, often hierarchical.
Managerial governance – Public-private partnerships, where semi-private entities oversee operations.
Market-based governance – Privatised models where corporations manage public infrastructure.
Network governance – Collaborative arrangements between state, private, and community actors.
While traditional governance dominates, hybrid models are common, sometimes leading to tensions between municipal, state, and federal authorities, as seen in large-scale infrastructure projects (Fleury & Gomes, 2024). The shift toward privatised governance, driven by neoliberal urbanism since the late 20th century (Searle & Cardew, 2000), has raised concerns over the commodification of public space. Studies indicate that perceptions of public space quality depend not only on physical design but also on management practices like cleanliness, maintenance, and policing.
The Future of Public Space
Public space governance continues to evolve amid pressures of urbanisation, climate change, and social equity. The challenge lies in balancing inclusivity, economic imperatives, and environmental sustainability. As cities adapt, equitable and participatory governance models will be crucial in ensuring public spaces remain accessible, multifunctional, and representative of diverse urban populations.
Pre-Colonial Adaptation and Evolution: Before European colonization, the land around what is now Sydney was home to the Gadigal people, who had a deep-rooted and dynamic connection to the area. This connection evolved through various climatic changes, including the transition from the Ice Age to a climate resembling today’s conditions. The Gadigal people used the foreshore of Sydney’s harbor as a place for gathering and fishing, as evidenced by archaeological findings of campfire ash and tools.
Contrary to common misconceptions, Indigenous history in the region was not static. Some accounts mistakenly portray the Gadigal people of 1788 as unchanged for thousands of years, but Indigenous culture was, in fact, dynamic and adaptable. While British colonization brought significant hardship and displacement, it is essential to recognize that the Gadigal culture continued to adapt and survive, even under oppressive conditions. This perspective challenges the erasure of Indigenous history, emphasizing resilience rather than disappearance.
Invasion and the First Fleet: The arrival of the First Fleet in 1788 marked the beginning of European settlement in Sydney. Governor Arthur Phillip and the penal colony’s establishment were characterized by an informal, ad-hoc expansion around the harbor. While the legal framework was designed to manage convicts, there was a degree of freedom that allowed settlers, including former convicts, to establish local trades, leading to economic activity concentrated around the docks. However, this growth came at a devastating cost to the Indigenous population, who were displaced through land theft, disease, and violent encounters, leading to a loss of cultural diversity.
Governors Phillip and Macquarie: Governor Phillip initially sought to foster peaceful relations with the local Indigenous population, but efforts largely failed as tensions grew. Later, under the leadership of Governor Lachlan Macquarie in the early 19th century, the focus shifted to urban development. Macquarie played a pivotal role in shaping Sydney’s infrastructure, overseeing the construction of critical public amenities such as hospitals, schools, roads, parks, and gardens. His initiatives laid the foundation for Sydney’s transformation from a penal colony to a burgeoning city.
This overview highlights the complexity of Sydney’s colonial history, marked by Indigenous resilience, colonial expansion, and early urban development.
Colonial port: beginnings to decomissioning
Barangaroo and the Early Trading Port: The area now known as Barangaroo played a vital role in Sydney’s early growth as a trading port. Initially a set of docks, later expanded with finger wharfs to accommodate advances in shipping, it became a hub for local and international trade. By the mid-19th century, numerous factories emerged around the docks to process the vast influx of imports and exports, fostering economic growth. However, while trade brought profits, the workforce mainly comprised newer immigrants who faced unstable employment, often holding multiple jobs within short periods. This economic instability contributed to the decline of the Rocks and nearby areas, as wealthier residents relocated to the emerging suburbs.
Industrialisation and Demographic Shifts: The area’s demographic transformation accelerated in the early 20th century, especially after the appearance of plague-carrying rats around 1910. The Rocks, already seen as a declining area, became further stigmatized, reinforcing its status as a working-class neighborhood dominated by low-income dockworkers. The flight of middle and upper classes to the suburbs left the area economically and socially marginalized.
Redevelopment of Southern Darling Harbour: In the mid-20th century, urban planning in Sydney was largely fragmented, marked by disputes between state and local governments. This lack of coherence, combined with the influence of property developers, resulted in inconsistent urban development. However, by the 1970s and 80s, a more strategic approach began to take shape, driven by globalisation and the aspiration to position Sydney as a “global city.” Redevelopment initiatives, including those at the south end of Darling Harbour, aimed to modernize the city’s infrastructure. Although these projects expanded Sydney’s capacity, the neoliberal planning principles led to designs that sometimes lacked vibrancy and community engagement, leaving parts of the area feeling sparse and disconnected.
Decommissioning of Barangaroo Docks: By the late 20th century, industrial activity began shifting south to Botany Bay, rendering the Barangaroo docks increasingly obsolete. This shift culminated in the official decommissioning of the docks in 2003, marking the end of an era for Sydney’s historic trading port and paving the way for new redevelopment opportunities.
This historical trajectory illustrates the transformation of Sydney’s waterfront from a bustling trading hub to a site of urban redevelopment, reflecting broader economic and social changes in the city’s evolution.
Redevelopment process
Vision for Renewal To revitalize the defunct docks at Barangaroo and support Sydney’s growth as a global city, the state government envisioned a new financial hub integrated with green, public spaces. In 2004, the East Darling Harbour Taskforce was established to set goals for the redevelopment, which included organizing an international design competition. The competition emphasized urban design, streetscapes, and landscapes, with a commitment to ensuring at least 50% of the area remained public space. The winning proposal, selected in 2006, was a design by Hill Thalis Architecture + Urban Projects, Paul Berkemeier Architect, and Jane Irwin Landscape Architecture, which prioritized public domain connectivity and modular structures. However, the design underwent significant changes, including the addition of a “natural” headland park and coves, sparking debate over the authenticity of these modifications.
2007 Planning Changes and Major Works SEPP Planning for the site was streamlined through the use of the Major Projects SEPP, which classified Barangaroo as a “State Significant Site,” allowing the state government to bypass local council input. This was facilitated by Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, an amendment aimed at expediting large projects. The first official concept plan was approved in 2007, featuring 399,800 square meters of Gross Floor Area (GFA) and 11 hectares of public space, but with broad and vague development blocks that allowed flexibility in future design decisions.
A series of modifications
Modifications and Evolving Public Domain Over the next 17 years, nine major modifications were made to the original concept plan, shifting the balance between public and private spaces:
First Modification (2007): Allowed waivers for design competitions if the project met standards of design excellence.
Second Modification (2009): Increased commercial GFA by 120,000 sqm to accommodate growing demand for office space and address budget constraints, raising concerns about the impact on public accessibility.
Third Modification (2009): Adjusted the northern end of the development to enhance the “natural” look of the foreshore.
Fourth Modification (2010): Added a landmark hotel, reduced the width of the southern shoreline public space, and increased building heights, leading to concerns about shrinking public amenities.
Fifth Modification (2012): Related to building basements but was withdrawn without explanation.
Sixth Modification (2014): Reduced the commitment to community use space from a minimum of 12,000 sqm to a maximum.
Seventh Modification (2015): Allowed excavation for basement car parking in Barangaroo South.
Eighth Modification (2016): Approved the inclusion of Crown Tower, increasing GFA and building height while isolating Hickson Park. Despite some community housing provisions, the increase in private development continued to strain public spaces.
Ninth Modification (2024, Pending): Focused on Barangaroo Central, proposing a GFA increase to 708,000 sqm, with reductions to Hickson Park and no significant additions to public space.
Governance Shifts and Corporate Interests The governance and management of Barangaroo’s redevelopment also saw changes. The Barangaroo Delivery Authority (BDA), established in 2009, took over planning and development responsibilities, promoting economic growth, sustainability, and infrastructure development. However, critics noted that modifications often catered to corporate interests at the expense of the public domain. For instance, the 2013 legislation change allowed the construction of Crown Tower without substantial public consultation, further diminishing accessible green spaces.
Erosion of Public Domain Since the original concept plan, the total GFA of Barangaroo has increased by 71%, while the provision of public space has not seen equivalent improvements. Although the project has helped transform Sydney’s waterfront, ongoing modifications have raised concerns about the long-term impacts on public accessibility, transparency, and urban vibrancy. The evolution of Barangaroo highlights the complex interplay between public planning and private investment, reflecting broader challenges in urban redevelopment.
Barangaroo Public Space Study 