If there is one thing I dislike about the subreddit r/Australia (and perhaps Reddit in general!) it is that it seems to be dominated by patronizingly smug young urban males. The main topic that incites this irritation is anything to do with urban planning . The prevailing opinion there is – to use one direct quote – “Taller buildings means higher density, less sprawl, less traffic, more efficient, better for environment.” Anyone who contradicts this view – such as suggesting that population growth should be restricted so that high density is not so necessary – is regarded with contempt (“NIMBYs!”) and downvoted.
This was in a thread about the latest ugly monstrosity for Melbourne predictably approved by Planning Minister Matthew Guy. Such extravagences are merely profit-making exercises for developers and mostly overseas investors, and do nothing to alleviate the housing crisis here or help the environment (as one commenter points out in the article comments: “Heating and cooling of common areas 24/7, running elevators 24/7. No access to air clothes drying – every apartment will be running a dryer. The energy consumption of apartments is higher than homes add to that they can not use green energy like solar, water catchment etc.”). I sincerely hope that the property market will collapse catastrophically, and an airplane fly into the building.
A Danish urban designer called Jan Gehl visited Melbourne last week and was critical of Docklands, and high-rise in general:
Professor Gehl is critical of high-rise towers as a planning solution. “The residential tower is the lazy architect’s answer to density,” he said. “My interest is ‘cities for people’ not ‘cities for developers’ and not ‘cities that make traffic happy’.”
Cities packed with tall glass-and-concrete towers are dreary, ugly and dehumanizing; the buildings are harsh and cold in aspect. Many of the ancient cities in Europe are pleasing to look at as their older apartment buildings are generally low-rise and made of stone, which gives them a warmer organic feel.
A recent article at io9 showed some designs of futuristic cities with a more organic look rather than the sterile glass-and-concrete metropolises usually favored by architects.
Some letters criticizing the development (and planning generally):
Herald-Sun, 2/2:
Protecting Shrine
IT is an outrage that embattled residents should have to keep defending the Shrine from manic planning ministers intent on destroying this sacred site (“Shrine in shadows”, Feb 28).
In March, 2010, Labor’s planning minister, Justin Madden, attempted to push through a high-rise on St Kilda Rd. The City of Melbourne joined residents in defeating the proposal.
Now the Shrine and surrounding Alexandra Gardens are threatened by a titanic residential and hotel tower. At night, the building will be lit up like a Christmas tree and will present a problem of light pollution to the surrounding suburb.
To many, it symbolises a one-finger salute from developers and Planning Minister Matthew Guy to the whole of Melbourne. Julianne Bell, Protectors of Public
– Lands Victoria Inc, Parkville
21/2:
High-rise needs restraint
MELBOURNE is a world-class city, having been recognised once again last year as the world’s most liveable city with a perfect score for infrastructure and an overall score of 97.5.
However, it seems the cause for our city’s impressive accolades are under threat due to a barrage of over-development.
There is seemingly no end to the huge high-rise buildings that Planning Minister Matthew Guy is willing to allow in such quick succession (Queensbridge Tower, Melbourne Tower and 450 Elizabeth St to name a few).
These decisions raise vast living and economic issues for our city, including oversupply, falling real estate values, soaring vacancy and further pressure on infrastructure and congestion.
These mega buildings threaten to cast a shadow over the integrity of our city in a very hasty time frame, and on a scale not previously seen in our city’s history.
The Paris end of Collins St, the elegance of Spring St and the cultural charm of Bourke St are what they are due to decades of rigorous planning consideration and decisions by predecessors.
These decision makers rewarded deserving and steady development, and had the foresight to reject development that would have compromised the essence of these precincts and, for that matter, our entire city.
– A Jones, Beaumaris
The Age, 5/2:
Developers top power pyramid
THE concept of an “independent government” planning panel is an oxymoron (“Panel endorses apartment towers in Armadale”, 3/2). The government overtly supports property developers and is in favour of increasing the height and density of Melbourne’s housing, even in outer-suburban areas. “Planning” has become synonymous with granting permits for developments and being dismissive of residents’ interests.
The panel also rejected a reasonable submission for more open space. VCAT decided the 600 objections to the proposed development was an “irrelevant consideration”. Increasingly, the property development industry is at the apex of the power pyramid. Healthcare, education, public housing and skills training are declining priorities.
Residents’ protests are set to dwindle as approvals are fast-tracked even further by prohibitive increases in VCAT fees. We can only question where our so-called democracy is heading when self-determination of our communities is being overridden by heavy-handed government departments and agencies.
– Margit Alm, Eltham
15/2:
Ban the cash
THE unfolding saga of apparent large-scale donations of money to the Doyle team in last year’s Melbourne City Council election (with the undoubted expectation on the part of the donors of favours from the recipients) is the latest case demonstrating the need for the banning of donations by companies to political parties and candidates in all elections (“Developer’s hidden link to Cr Doyle”, 14/2). This is the only way of minimising the steady erosion of our democratic process by self-serving companies wanting to gain an advantage over business rivals. Enough is enough. It is time for totally publicly funded elections at all levels of government.
– Robert Humphreys, Coburg
Locals on the outer
WHY should the “Developer’s hidden link to Cr Doyle” be a revelation? Frustrated and disillusioned residents in the City of Melbourne who have fought in vain against the imposition of unsympathetic high-rise developments, and even for the retention of heritage housing stock, are only too aware of the pro-development attitude of the City of Melbourne. We locals are not well represented on the Melbourne council, which is dominated by voters who live outside the municipality, expanding the opportunity for this inappropriate election fundraising. Where is the balance and transparency in local government and the planning process? How can the voice of the ordinary citizen ever be heard with these inbuilt dysfunction, let alone with the proposed rise in VCAT fees?
– Jennifer Cook, West Melbourne
