“Deceptive green of suburban gardens”, The Age, 19/9. Opinion piece by a Robert Nelson, who thinks that suburban gardens are environmentally-unfriendly because they take up space and encourage urban sprawl. So his “solution” is, predictably, to do away with planning regulations and cram housing together as much as possible.
With fewer private gardens, less water would be used and the streets would have people in them, with shops and cafes at ground level rather than the great Australian emptiness of our suburbs, where – as Baudrillard said of Los Angeles – you feel like a delinquent if you aren’t in a car.
Australians speak fondly of preserving the established character of their neighbourhoods and jealously guard against the alien aesthetics of large edifices occupying the full block. Their defence of the leafy ambience is an understandable NIMBY reaction; but it’s also a parochial immaturity that we must grow out of.
Mate, you’ve got it wrong – gardens provide habitat for birds and animals, help cool the microclimates surrounding houses and streets, absorb CO2 and make the urban landscape pleasanter. The solution to urban sprawl is containing population growth – then residents do not have to endure high-density living. There is nothing “immature” about opposing high-density developments.
Some letters from today’s The Age in response (also to the population growth prediction articles):
Balancing green with buildings
Robert Nelson’s piece (“Deceptive green of suburban gardens”, Comment & Debate, 18/9) is welcome. An alternative theme came to me: gardening in the leftover land between monstrous houses and their boundaries.
When I was growing up in the 1950s, the aspirational house was 12 to 14 squares (110 to 130 square metres) for the family of five. Now it is something like 22 to 40 squares for three to four people. Monash University, where Dr. Nelson teaches, once reinforced that “green dream” when the attraction of open space was a reason why people enrolled there. Now its Clayton campus struggles to “green” the leftover bits between its building ambitions. Unfortunately, the market has not embraced the inspirational approach of balancing green with buildings. How long does it take to change culture?
– Paul Thompson, landscape architect, Mooroolbark
Urban deserts only add to social stress
Robert Nelson’s proposal for saving the planet by abolishing suburban gardens is misguided. It takes no account of the environmental and social benefits of gardens, especially those with native plants. Even inner-city gardens provide habitats for native birds, lizards and insects.
They help provide cooler environments in summer, especially when houses are shaded by trees. They can be used to grow fruit and vegetables and keep poultry, thereby reducing reliance on the air-polluting transportation of food. And they encourage healthy outdoor activities that are less polluting than energy-powered indoor pastimes.
Turning our suburbs into urban deserts will only add to social stress, causing more of us to move to the countryside. Better technology, urban planning and a smaller human population are the solutions.
– Jason Foster, Mirboo North
Preserving our link to the land
Robert Nelson’s critique of the suburban garden lifestyle is shortsighted. He rightly draws our attention to the high cost of our low-density suburbs in the form of massive use of cars and the pollution they cause, but fails to consider their role in the future. In a no-growth society, the journey to work will be greatly reduced and much of it will be by public transport, foot or bike. Gardens will come into their own, not only as pleasant places to be but where we grow a substantial portion of our own food.
It is true that the creation of the suburbs had an aesthetic motive, but it involved a deep-seated reaction to high-density living based on thousands of years of living more closely with the land. Surely that relationship is worth conserving.
– Geoff Mosley, Hurstbridge
So many ways to reduce emissions
So, Robert Nelson wants to abolish the setbacks and sun-lit gardens of Melbourne, still one of the world’s most liveable cities, to make it more like London, New York and Seoul – far from the most liveable cities. Amazing. The reason he gives is that sprawl generates car travel, which produces greenhouse emissions. Yet such brutalising of Melbourne’s cherished green areas will take decades to strongly affect the world’s climate.
Dr. Nelson seems blissfully unaware of the plethora of suggestions to reduce emissions more quickly and with less damage to our city’s wonderful, hard-won features. These include appropriate public transport, transit lanes, reducing the number of children driven to school, green cars, incentives for employers who hire workers living nearby, harnessing the solar, wind and water recycling potential that exists within suburban backyards, local food, staggered working hours, telecommuting, high-standard bike paths and urban forestry.
A little more open-minded, lateral thinking and less vandalism, please.
– Ray Wyatt, Balwyn North
Curbing the sprawl
The editorial, “35 million Australians? Start preparing now” (19/9), provided an insightful overview of a looming catastrophe. Melbourne 2030 provided a sustainable alternative to the relentless urban sprawl. It had the potential to address congestion problems, facilitate public transport and encourage people to be less car-dependent, as well as enable the development of vibrant and dense communities. But it involved significant change.
Unfortunately, rather than engaging with the community, providing leadership and comprehensive back-up, it was delivered as a fait accompli. As a result, it was easy for powerful, single-interest groups and local government to scuttle the changes. In this instance, all parties must work together to find solutions. The problem is that there are no robust public forums where urban change can be debated and resolved. The Age’s intention to lead the debate is welcome.
– David Rayson, Albert Park
High-risk approach
Your editorial perpetuates the myth that an ever-increasing population is required so there will be enough workers to support retired people. However, its premise is false.
We have educated, skilled workers aged over 45 who are deemed “too old” by prejudiced employers. Proportionally, there are more older people than in previous generations, because they are living longer. Many are willing and able to work after a retirement age suitable for life expectancies a century ago.
Real wealth per head has doubled in the past 40 years and will probably continue on this trajectory. We will be able to afford a larger non-working population and still indulge in the waste of mass consumerism. Industries such as construction advocate increasing our population because it profits from building more sprawling suburbs and related infrastructure. The money would be better spent providing first-class housing, schools, hospitals and transport for the current population and investing in high-tech export industries. Taking 30 million immigrants from Asia, Africa or Europe will have no significant effect on those massively populated continents but would devastate Australia’s fragile ecology.
– Philip Shehan, Brunswick
