email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now. |
Oh look, another little bit of nonsense from a "planner" who wants to sell his own services.
Sydney architect and urban planner Craig Allchin says that packing people into high rise sardine tins is inevitable (City high rise, suburban apartments 'inevitable',The West Australian, 13 Jul 10). Bugger you, says this "expert", I'm going to build concrete blocks over your dreams of a pleasant suburban life-style.
In his own words: "One of the big problems is every time someone sees a development application for a big change we all erupt into an angry mob and form a no-development group and try to stop the change."
So, in his own words, "we all" have no rights if a developer wants to make a lot of money.
How stupid is this man? He makes a heap of money from planning to build concrete jungles. Then he acts upset because people do not want to exist in a concrete jungle.
Manage population growth
I just put that headline in there to remind you of the real problem: The population is growing past an acceptable level yet we accept that population growth is inevitable.Living in a high rise concrete jungle is not "inevitable". Not if we tackle the correct problem, of population growth. "We all" seem to be against over-development. Stop population growth and we will stop the need for constant growth of concrete blocks. Destruction of our preferred standard of living is not "inevitable" -- as long as we tackle the real problem.
So what is this "expert" doing in Perth anyway? He's here to support the concrete growth view of the Committee for Perth.
Another self-interest group, the Committee for Perth
The Committee for Perth, "aims to ensure that Perth’s future is planned and coordinated in a way that maximises the use of our geographical positioning, the business and intellectual resources available and the strength that our resource based economy provides" (from their website, 14 Jul 10). All very good. What do they really want?The Committee wants a "vision" for Perth. In a research publication they write,"Historically, Perth has looked elsewhere for models but the city is big enough, old enough and sophisticated enough to be able to develop its own vision." The report then goes to other cities -- elsewhere! -- to see what other cities have in the way of city vision.
btw: The report's author gained the bulk of her experience in Ireland and New Zealand. Always safest to avoid local talent, isn't it.
The report looks for vision statements from the fifty top-ranked on a city "liveability ranking". Twenty visions were found. Twenty?!
To my maths, that means that 60% of the top-ranked livable cities of the world do not have -- do not need -- a vision statement. Is Perth on that list? Well, actually, yes...
Perth already ranks eighth on the list. Not bad, I think. Not bad at all, with no "vision" to back it up... Perhaps Perth is just a good place to live! Already a good place -- as it is now.
Can we improve? Sure! How would the Committee for Perth have us improve? Let's look at their publications... For example, "A tale of two cities that need to be integrated" by Marion Fulker, the CEO of Committee for Perth. It was published in The West on 18 Mar 10 and is available on the Committee website (A tale of two cities).
The article invents conclusions from an informal survey of a selected audience.
Attendees at a sponsored lunch were asked to name their favourite places around Perth. The surveyees liked rivers, beaches and parks. They also liked "our energetic urban spaces. Fremantle, Subiaco, South Perth..." So "we" -- the people invited to the lunch sponsored by Committee for Perth -- like natural spaces and they like city spaces.
This, apparently, is a "contradiction".
"We" like open spaces and we like closed spaces. To you and me, this means that "we" like a variety of different spaces. To Committee for Perth, this means that "what we truly treasure... are those intimate nooks that give our city personality and vibrancy." Eh?! What happened to the wide open beaches, parks and rivers?!
More and more, with less and less good sense
Having dismissed any thoughts of natural assets -- beaches, rivers, parks -- Fulker's article continues on its descent into pre-arranged conclusions.Fulker wants to link the city centre with Northbridge: "we may be able to create a link between the two currently opposing values of open spaces and intimate urbanity. The city centre is critical." So... Which is the "open space"? City centre or Northbridge? What a load of nonsense Fulker has packed into just one paragraph!
But wait! There's more!
That same paragraph continues. "Yet what is underdeveloped is the potential of the waterfront." Oh. I see. Northbridge is a festering rat-hole. Linking it to the city centre will magically transform it into a pleasantly nooky little place to visit. And if we put a lot of buildings on the edge of the river, we will somehow transform the very popular open space, into... another bit of concrete jungle!
You like the open and natural spaces of parks and rivers? Tough! The Committee for Perth wants to build buildings.
The Committee for Perth wants parks and rivers converted to buildings. They want "flexible shopping hours, a dynamic arts and cultural scene and approvals processes that support and encourage these," these development-at-all-costs-as-long-as-it-brings-us-profits proposals by committee sponsors, I guess.
Forget about the "we all" who -- according to Craig Allchin -- do not want development. Forget about Perth as already being the eighth most livable city in the world. Marion Fulker is paid to support development.
Development at all costs, as long as the cost is borne only by "we all" who are already happy to live in Perth. Development that will destroy the current "open space" amenities of Perth.
But that's okay. Fulker and the rest of her committee will have gained huge profits. They will be able to move somewhere else.
Away from the concrete jungle that they hope to see in Perth.
Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com |
No comments:
Post a Comment