Developers’ paradise

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):

Freeway mania

The Peninsula Link is soon to open. This is the freeway
opposed by environment groups as it cut through several reserves, including the Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve, heritage original native bushland. The aerial map images below show the extent of the destruction:

2009:

2012:

The remaining creatures living there will be subjected to the noise and pollution from thousands of motor vehicles passing through every day.

Those who participated in this vandalism – construction workers and others – should be thoroughly ashamed. How would they like their houses to be bulldozed while they were living in them? So much of Victoria’s vegetation has been cleared since European settlement and it is still ongoing despite supposedly greater environmental awareness now. The situation is much the same in other states.

Roads are one infrastructure item governments always seem to find funding for – despite making cuts to vital services such as health care – and there are more planned around Melbourne to scar the landscape. Population growth is one driving force (so to speak) behind road construction and there is no sign of either stopping, unfortunately.

A relevant letter from today’s Herald-Sun:

Precious peninsula

THE Government claims the new Peninsula Link freeway will cut the time of traveling between Mt Martha and Carrum Downs by 17 minutes, and save 40 minutes in peak time.

The aim is more than an expensive $759 million effort to reduce driving times for commuters.

The peninsula’s green wedges will be more accessible and be nibbled away for urban sprawl. More land will be opened for housing to soak up our population growth, set at full-throttle speed by government policies.

More of our environmental and social capital will be traded in so developers and investors can profit from Melbourne’s growth.

Housing on the peninsula won’t be affordable, but maximised by good location and the globalisation of the property market.

– Beatrice Ortega, Heidelberg Heights

More angering news is that the Victorian Planning Minister now has new powers to speed major projects. Which means he can override environmental concerns and residents’ protests against inappropriate developments in favor of business and developers. I feel so helpless to oppose these greedy growth-obsessed parasites and politicians, and it is incredibly frustrating to see the continuing destruction of the once-livable city and state I have grown up in.

---

Addendum: A letter, The Age, 29/1:

Destroying nature just to fulfil wants

AS PENINSULA Link opens to huge amounts of traffic and raves about the racing car-perfect surface, we should take a minute to think about what we have lost in order to save some time: hundreds of trees that were homes to wildlife, hundreds of hectares of precious habitat for endangered southern brown bandicoots, and the songs of birds. We’re going to lose more as development speeds up throughout the Mornington Peninsula and, in particular, the Tootgarook Swamp, which stands in the way of the Peninsula Link extension to Rye.

The cost, so often advertised as $756 million, will be more than $2 billion by the time we pay it off over 25 years. As we hear more and more of our human services being cut, education being slashed, and hospital beds being closed, I despair at our selfish desire for comfort over substance; and at our ability to leave a sustainable planet for the future.

– Gillian Collins, Friends of the Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve, Frankston North

News article, 31/1: “Peninsula Link blamed for more animal fatalities on Casey roads”, Cranbourne Leader.

High-density hell

Every time I visit Melbourne CBD (every few months by train) I am reminded why I don’t like cities and certainly wouldn’t want to live there as a resident! It is noisy, stinky and increasingly crowded, not to mention unbearably hot in summer with all the asphalt and concrete smothering the ground, the streets claustrophobically overshadowed by towering buildings. And this is the city again voted world’s most livable! I shudder to think what less-livable cities are like.

A new resident to the CBD made the mistake of complaining about how noisy it was – the main offenders being music venues – and oh was he castigated, both in the article comments and elsewhere (Reddit’s mostly-younger members being a predictable example). Well, seeing as governments are pushing for higher-density cities, this sort of conflict is going to happen a lot, so I don’t know why those castigating him were so offended. Is there any law that says cities have to be noisy, aside from fatuous bullshit about noise contributing to “vibrancy”? A lot of what passes for “music” is just loud noise pollution and the environment is better off without it.

There was a quite vitriolic post on Reddit – Urban Sprawl now biggest impediment to Economy – where those who objected to high density/urban consolidation being touted as the ultimate solution to our woes got downvoted and called NIMBYers (the usual predictably tired insult). They are anti-backyards (a wasteful allotment of space according to their philosophy) and think everyone should live crammed into apartment towers with a park or two providing lonely oases of greenery. I have given up arguing with people of that mindset as they have a quasi-religious conviction that high-density is the only acceptable way to live. Not so – reducing population growth would enable people to live in detached houses with gardens and backyards, and contain urban sprawl – it would also ensure that land is retained for local food production. But this alternative solution is unthinkable to high-density advocates.

I also found disagreeable this later related post, You want housing up, not out? – the HD advocates (I really need a catchy name for them) want to brainwash children into their cult:

My idea is to use an art/design competition to harness the imaginations of older children and effectively use their drawings as covert propaganda for the type of places we want to exist, after steering their little minds towards what we want them to draw. It’ll be asking primary school children to draw how they foresee their dream Australian lifestyle, or dream city in X amount of years. What will streets and cities look like? How will people live?

This Sustainable Living webpage from NSW Save Our Suburbs gives arguments against urban consolidation. (They don’t, however, advocate restricting population growth; rather, they encourage regional decentralization.)

My little utopian vision is of cities being mostly depopulated, and people living in smaller regional towns, each having its own sustainable power and food supplies, and connected by high-speed rail and Internet. A slower, environmentally-friendly and more relaxed society. I would like to see a “small, smart and sustainable” future for Australia; I emphatically reject the “big Australia” and frantic unsustainable push for endless economic growth that currently has us trapped.

Melbourne in 2050: unlivable

“Still liveable?”, The Age, 22/11. This in-depth article looks at the rapid growth of Melbourne – predicted at the current rate to reach 6.4 million in 2050 – and the failure of the State Government to keep up with the infrastructure required to support such numbers. New suburbs are being built on what was once farmland at great distances from the CBD, and the residents there have virtually nothing in the form of access to public transport. The current planning system favors developers at the expense of livability issues, and there is no move to change this. Of course, the basic problem is the relentless population growth the city has been inundated with – and neither State nor Federal Governments appear willing to tackle this issue by reducing the too-high immigration rate, and discouraging the high birth rate – too radical for our growth-based economy to contemplate. One academic quoted in the article does not believe population growth is a problem:

The state government’s 20-minute city proposal is “a complete pipedream”, says Carolyn Whitzman, associate professor in urban planning at Melbourne University. “Whether Melbourne has 4 million or 6 million people, we’re not travelling in a particularly equitable direction,” she says. “I don’t necessarily see population growth as a bad thing, it just has to be managed properly. Currently, we live in a socially divided and environmentally unsustainable city.”

Realistically, population growth is almost never “managed properly” – certainly not by Australian governments – and with most cutting funding such management is even more unlikely.

From a commenter in a related article:

Still more articles agonising about strategies for adapting Melbourne’s moribund infrastructure to cope with future population explosion, all predicated on the unspoken and unchallenged assumption that population growth is inevitable and sacred. None of the learned commentators and politicians dares mention the obvious solution – limiting population growth, which could be done with social pressure on parents to limit family sizes, and governments limiting immigration. Why the collective dread of mentioning this obvious fact?

– boxchester, Melbourne, November 22, 2012, 11:48AM

I feel like starting a Mattew Guy hate page on Facebook or something! The Planning Minister comes across as arrogant and condescending in his statements, such as this opinion piece: “The metropolis our forefathers built will continue to be vibrant and exciting”, H-S, 22/11, a relentlessly optimistic extolling of Melbourne’s continous expansion. (I would like to declare a fatwa on the word vibrant …) He is of the opinion that huge skyscrapers make a city “sophisticated” – “Mr Guy dismissed those who complain about over-development, saying: ‘If Melbourne is too successful, maybe they should move to Adelaide’.” (source) – presumably Adelaide is not yet wrecked as Melbourne? “Taller buildings, he said, were a symbol of a growing nation, a strong economy and can ‘define a city’.” (source) He wrote a rather patronizing opinion piece in today’s Herald-Sun: “The metropolis our forefathers built will continue to be vibrant and exciting” (behind a paywall, reproduced below):

Selling off Melbourne

“Alarm over city bribes offer”, The Age, 21/10 and “The land dragons”. A lot of property in Melbourne and surrounding suburbs is being bought up by overseas investors for development, often without regard for those who live around the usually ugly buildings that are erected. Quite a lot of people seem to regard a city full of skyscrapers as sophisticated and futuristic, and regard those who think otherwise as backwards Luddites. I find such buildings dehumanizing and they are claustrophobic to walk under as they block out the sun and sky. Melbourne was a pleasanter place before skyscrapers were built.

The developments do nothing to alleviate the housing affordability crisis and here as they are marketed towards wealthy buyers and investors (some also from overseas). I feverently hope the property market will catastrophically collapse and all these greedy parasites will lose their money.

Some letters from today’s Age in response:

See you later, Mr Xu

JEFF Xu says developers can go elsewhere – if we don’t adopt an exponential approach to growth (“The land dragons”, The Sunday Age, 21/10). Then, Mr Xu, we’ll be seeing you. Growth is the ponzi scheme of the economy. You make your money, walk away and leave us to pick up the pieces. I would rather you left before you make your money that way.

The current wailing from the under-resourced new housing developments on Melbourne’s agricultural fringe will be a roar within a decade. The centre of town will be a lightless slum, and the Matthew Guys, Ron Walkers and Jeff Xus will be long gone – but not forgotten. It is good that developers who are “taking us to the cleaners” are being named.

– CHRISTOPHER MONIE, Ballarat

Room to block view

AS ASIAN-financed boxes move further skyward, much charm in our city is slowly being diminished. Perhaps it is just as well that our suburban transport system’s use of external advertising, at least partially, obscures our view of the changing landscape.

– PAUL MURCHISON, Kingsbury

Weed out corruption

CITY of Melbourne councillor Ken Ong warns of a “ ‘subculture’ of corruption taking root in Melbourne” (“Alarm over city bribes offer”, The Sunday Age, 21/10). However, the subculture of corruption may have already taken firm root in a range of areas. We have small-scale entrepreneur “Mary” operating her business of ghost-writing assignments, and now large-scale, bribe-offering developer entrepreneurs at the big end of town.

Regardless of how business may be done in other countries, it is vital for the wellbeing of our society that we ensure things are done here with honesty and due process. Vigilant scrutiny and constant weeding out of any corruption before its poisonous roots go too deep is needed. Applause for Councillor Ong for his timely warning.

– DEBORAH MORRISON, Malvern East

Not our backyard

SHANGHAI property developer Jeff Xu says developers “can choose Canada … they can choose Shanghai”. I respectfully recommend choosing Shanghai for fulfilling high-rise fantasies; leave Melbourne alone. Australians like wide-open spaces; they want to see the sky, the ocean, the hills and plains, feel surrounded by nature. They do not want to live in crammed spaces removed from the environment. Melbourne is one of the world’s most liveable places thanks to its parks and gardens, not because of its looming towers in the CBD.

– MARGIT ALM, Eltham

“Chinese parents invest in overseas digs for sons and daughters”, Wentworth Courier, 5/10. This trend also drives up house prices and pushes out local citizens who simply want a place to live. Any hope of the government closing this loophole? Not likely.

Collected letters

Another batch of letters from The Age, in response to the article linked to last entry about Planning Minister Matthew Guy. Most feel the same negativity toward him and the planning system as I do. I did not comment on the planning reforms site as I did not know what to say specifically about the topics – not qualified enough.

Planning for destruction

“The Planning Guy” – profile of Victorian Liberal Government Planning Minister, Matthew Guy. I thought that previous Labor Minister Justin Madden was bad, but this one is far worse. The radical planning changes he is pushing through will give virtual free rein to developers and ruin Melbourne’s established suburbs by continuing overdevelopment and overcrowding, and pave over much of the remaining green spaces. Even Lady April Hamer, the widowed wife of the creator of the Green Wedges areas (ironically from the Liberal party of then), was moved to speak out last month against the changes. There is more commentary on the issue at (We) Can Do Better.

An article from yesterday’s Herald-Sun (not online that I could find) reported that immigration had increased alarmingly:

Big leap in migrant numbers

AN influx of New Zealanders and foreign students has forced the Federal Government to sharply increase its immigration estimates. Net overseas migration has reached about 217,000 people a year — about 25,000 more than was predicted a few months ago. It means the so-called Big Australia target of 36 million by 2050 could be reached much earlier because the estimate is based on average net annual migration of only 184,000.

New Immigration Department data reveals a net influx of 39,000 foreign students for the year to September — more than double the number predicted by the department in a May report.

The net number of New Zealanders arriving has hit 31,300, compared with 17,900 predicted in May. New Zealand and Australian citizens have the unrestricted right to migrate between each other’s borders.

Monash University migration expert Dr Bob Birrell said yesterday the rising number of Kiwi arrivals was a worry in a contracting job market. “It’s unlikely that we need this influx — the sooner we regulate it the better,” Dr Birrell said.

There have been hundreds of job losses from various industries this year in Victoria alone – many from long-established businesses going under – so where are all these newcomers going to find work? It will mean extra competition with those already here. The population growth also increases demand for housing and public services (transport, health), both of which are not keeping pace.

An article from The Age last month, “54,000 refugees, no questions asked”, 22/8, reported that:

AUSTRALIA is facing a flood of economic refugees. But the big numbers aren’t from the north, they are from the across the Tasman where Statistics New Zealand yesterday announced the biggest exodus to Australia on record.

An extraordinary 53,900 New Zealanders moved to Australia in the year to July – around the entire population of New Plymouth, New Zealand’s 11^th biggest city.

[…]

The Closer Economic Relations agreement with New Zealand means Australia is unable to control its trans-Tasman border. It is required to accept as permanent or long-term residents as many of New Zealand’s 4.4 million residents as want to move here. If present trends continue Australia’s annual intake from New Zealand will exceed 100,000 within five years. New Zealand has had no net arrivals over the past year.

It is definitely time to rethink that agreement! The exchange seems to be mostly one-way.

A H-S letter, 4/9:

Jobs going to foreigners

FOREIGN workers on controversial 457 visas have taken 13,680 jobs in Victoria at a time of increasing unemployment, job losses and double-figure youth unemployment in some areas.

Many Victorians are facing tough times.

Why then are jobs going to “temporary” foreign workers?

There’s nothing more permanent than a temporary worker, with many of them ultimately applying for PR and adding to population pressure.

Our Government imagined our economy would surge and grow, even in non-mining states.

This is not happening, and we have more skilled people than jobs and housing.

Employers can simply get the cheaper option of foreign workers instead of investing in, and training, willing Australians needing jobs. It’s a betrayal.

– Vivienne Ortega, Heidelberg Heights

Those who oppose these policies predictably get demonized as xenophobic – this opinion piece in The Australian, “Our future is as Asia’s nation of immigration” espouses the “need” for a big Australia; being a pro-business and pro-growth paper these type of articles are typical.

Gillard is the Adelaide Pom, wanting to freeze-frame the nation. The focus groups tell her to slow population growth, which is code for talking down the immigration intake. She has yet to confront voters with Australia’s need for more people.

[…]

Our future in Asia is as the world’s best immigration nation, that is, as Australians. But we need more, not fewer, Chinese and Indians to want to live across the country to prove it.

So according to that view, Australia should serve as a relief valve for extremely overpopulated countries. We can thus farewell the country’s livability if such growth continues.

Collected letters

Collected letters

Herald-Sun, 25/6:

Population alert

THE clowns are again reiterating climate-change nonsense, this time in Brazil. A waste of time and effort.

Who will be the ring master and both espouse and support our planet’s main problem, overpopulation? Poland has dispensed with the warming nonsense and others will follow. Nothing we do will affect the planet other than reducing population.

Please, one world leader stand up and promote population reduction. I know the Chinese are. Where in the developed world is the fortitude for the same? Your top hat awaits.

– Tim Stafford, Mt Eliza

27/6:

Tax welcomed

AS SOMEONE fortunate enough to have received a scientific education to university level, I do not feel we have a right to ignore environmental concerns in our quest for future existence on this planet.

It does concern me that various high-profile columnists espouse a mantra of continued population and economic growth, with their costs of unsustainable consumption and environmental change.

I for one do sleep more soundly at night with the thought that our government is implementing a carbon tax, no matter how ineffectual, as it is a start to recognising something that seems increasingly to be affecting us all.

Maybe it is time we all became more scientifically literate.

– Jim Royston, Heidelberg

Three weeks ago, the Victorian Bailleu government announced it would be rezoning yet more valuable farmland and green wedges around outer Melbourne for housing to accommodate the ever-growing population. Various developers, many of whom are lobbyists, will benefit, but the environment certainly won’t. A later article noted that “Urban spread poses new threat to endangered frogs”, but the government apparently does not care – for them, growth must come at any cost. I can feel only despair and anger at being so powerless to stop this destruction.

The Age, 14/6:

Boundary is a rubbery concept

DOES the state government have a mandate to open up thousands of hectares of green wedge land and farmland (“Government shifts green wedge boundary”, The Age, 13/6) for housing on the metropolitan fringe? Where is the democratic consultation and what are the long-term benefits of its plans?

What Planning Minister Matthew Guy considers “anomalies” were actually planned by the Hamer government to prevent Melbourne becoming a monolith of housing and concrete. There’s no “logic” in grabbing thousands of hectares of “logical inclusion” from green wedges, but there is pure greed for growth.

This extension of the urban boundary will be the fourth time it has been shifted since the Bracks government introduced it in 2002, so there’s no real boundary - it’s an imaginary rubbery line that expands with market forces and urban obesity.

When no one is in charge of properly regulating natural resources, cities grow in ways that are utterly unpredictable and without regard to optimising resources. Nature functions on balance, and perpetual growth is not natural. We could suffer the same fate as any other species whose habitat is destroyed by the blind pursuit of excesses.

– Vivienne Ortega, Heidelberg Heights

Try before you buy

PERHAPS there should be a scheme to allow people to try living on Melbourne’s furthest fringes for a week or so to see before they buy if they have the mental and physical stamina it takes. Try for a week driving to work on a scarcely moving freeway. Or be at the station by 7 a.m. to get a park and a spot to stand up in the train for 40 kilometres to the city.

Try booking your child into kinder or school and have a look at the sheer size of such educational facilities. (Note that size does not always equate with quality). Sit for hours in the only hospital’s emergency department. It is looking less and less appealing isn’t it? Perhaps we should encourage the Planning Minister and Premier to live such a week. It might make them less keen to jam more and more people into the city’s under-resourced fringe.

– Clancy Briggs, Berwick

Toxic consequences

IF I approached the state government with a planning proposal that would not only increase the cost of food, but also the levels of respiratory disease and other health problems, I would be quite rightly shown the door.

But this is what will transpire with the Baillieu government’s vision for greater urban sprawl and freeway development, concreting over Melbourne’s green wedges and farming belt to increase the costs of fresh produce and the levels of atmospheric toxicity.

The market will now capriciously determine all the worst possible scenarios, favouring short-term housing booms over long-term food security, freeways to the exclusion of rail infrastructure.

You’d think that with a degree in architecture, Ted Baillieu would possess some environmental sensibility that might embrace state decentralisation and a respect for the primacy of planning, but it seems not.

– John Ashton, Fitzroy North

A new model sorely needed

PLANNING Minister Matthew Guy says 37,000 lots of land will be developed over 30 years to house more than 100,000 people. This might boost the housing industry, but once the houses are built, there are no guarantees of employment near or far from the houses.

An economy largely dependent on land tax and stamp duty means perpetually being strangled by the challenges of meeting the costs of urban infrastructure, creating jobs in a declining job market, and relying on the cash flows generated by continually stretching the urban boundary. A report by National Australia Bank on Victoria’s health says the state faces challenges as the worst performing state, and that’s despite churning out more houses and land than we can currently sell. We obviously need a new economic paradigm not dependent on paving over irreplaceable open space just to create more empty houses.

– Jenny Warfe, Dromana

Rats in a cage

“Police called to more than 100 disputes every day”, Herald-Sun, 29/5 (copy URL into Google search, click on link results to get around paywall). This was the headline for yesterday, the article saying that “Overcrowding is being blamed for rising neighbourhood violence”. Well, you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to come to that conclusion!

The 000 [emergency] hotline sent police to almost 42,000 neighbourhood disputes in Melbourne and Geelong postcodes - a 12 per cent jump in a year. Violence and ugly verbal feuds between neighbours are as common as family disputes, the focus of a decade-long police campaign. Police have less power to intervene in neighbour disputes. Residents have told of incidents including vicious verbal abuse and terrifying attacks with knives, fireworks and slingshots, often after complaining about noisy parties or local hoons. Freedom of Information data obtained by the Herald Sun reveals the most crowded and fastest-growing suburbs are most affected. […]

Sgt Amanda Napier, of St Kilda police, said “paper thin walls” in overcrowded suburbs drove residents to the brink. “The incidents in St Kilda I think would be attributed to the fact that there are so many flats which have paper thin walls and any sort of noise can be heard,” she said. Dandenong police Sgt Paddy Hayes said alcohol often fuelled noisy parties and fights. He said it was an issue in growth areas such as Casey, where housing density meant residents were “living on top of each other”.

Some cultures, such as that of Japan, have adapted social behaviors that enable their populations to live high density without too much conflict (though I suspect frustration comes out in other ways). Australian culture, however, likes its space, and the crowding and urban density resulting from sustained population growth is driving many mad (myself included). I will link yet again to an article from a few years ago, “London’s a rat hole”:

His scathing assessment was being submitted to the main opposition Conservative Party’s policy group focusing on quality of life. “Putting 10 million aggressive hominids into close proximity and inviting them to engage in serial acts of competitive individualism … for jobs, schools or parking spaces, could not be considered a reasonable idea,” Bayley said. “You put rats in claustrophobic circumstances and they become homosexual, murderous and cannibalistic in no time at all. Instead humans find ingenious solutions, underground car parks, coffee shops, Chinese takeaways, one-man buses, cycle lanes, tall buildings.”

H-S letter in response, 30/5:

Overcrowding so bad for society

IT is to be expected that all this overcrowding and high-density housing being forced on us is causing social problems (“Battle in the burbs”, May 29).

All you need to do is go back to the famous study of the behaviour of rats when forced to live in overcrowded conditions. The more overcrowded, the more aggressive they became. We behave much the same as the rats.

We all need a bit of space around us to keep our sanity and balance. The more packed-in they make our city, the more the police will be called on. When will any government wake up?

– Mary Drost, convener, Planning Backlash Inc

Battery-hen living

“Hong Kong’s High-Density Housing & Cramped Living Conditions”, ChinaSMACK.com, 23/5 (via Kotaku). These are a series of photos showing the incredibly cramped living conditions that are normal for that city. To my view it looks rather hellish, though I suppose someone who grew up there would regard it as normal. I guess such cramped apartments are preferable to being homeless, but it seems a very Nature-deprived way of living – humans did not evolve to live like termites. I can’t imagine such conditions as being good for their long-term health. Many regard such dense living as desirable for its supposed reduced “ecological footprint”, but the people in the buildings still need all their supplies brought in from elsewhere. I would hate to have to climb up and down hundreds of stairs, or rely on lifts, just to go outside! If a fire took hold in one of those apartments, it would be a major disaster if the residents could not access fire escapes.

A recent Daily Mail article shows the even more nightmarish-looking Kowloon Walled City in China before its (thankful) demolition, an unplanned, unregulated and claustrophobic rabbit warren housing 50,000 or so residents. I don’t envy the children growing up there! They would undoubtedly have many health problems, given China’s pollution, and be very Nature-deprived if they never went outside its walls. The io9 sci-fi site mentioned the place a few times – a few commenters there seem to have romanticized views of the place as it resembled a science fiction dystopia.

Families are squeezed together in tiny apartments, with all their possessions crowding the rooms. (I have to admit that my increasingly cluttered bedroom does not look too different! But at least I can go outside into the backyard or for a walk around the streets.)

“No room for a view”, The Age, 14/5. Melbourne CBD residents are increasingly facing a problem with overshadowing from the many tall apartments being erected, though on a much smaller scale than Hong Kong. Planning here is generally poorly-thought out, with developers given far too many concessions. Problem is that most cities have not been planned properly from their inception and have grown in a messy organic fashion over the decades or centuries – Kowloon was an extreme example of this – so new developments are shoehorned in as best city planners can.

“Population clock shows Japan faces extinction in 1000 years”, 13/5. Yet another alarmist article concerning Japan’s ageing and declining population! It seems to have become a favorite trope. Given their advances in technology (somewhat exaggerated in a satirical Onion article from 2007, “Earthquake Sets Japan Back To 2147”), perhaps they will have robot helpers by then, and people won’t stop having children altogether, so the article is just silly. A couple of letters in response, 16/5:

Falling population

ANYONE who has battled crowds on Tokyo’s trains will welcome the news that Japan’s population is declining (“Population clock shows Japan faces extinction in 1000 years”, theage.com.au, 13/5). Japan is an overcrowded country with few natural resources, and its population needs to decline.

As for disappearing altogether, it’s not going to happen. When the population gets close to what is deemed ecologically sustainable, all the government needs to do is introduce baby bonuses to boost the fertility rate. After the baby bonus was introduced here, our fertility rate went from 1.7 to 1.9.

As for ageing, look at the Okinawans. They live to a ripe old age and are largely independent as they age. Other Japanese can do the same once they are given a bit of space and fresh air – splendid side effects of a lower population.

– Jenny Goldie, Michelago, NSW

Act on East Timor

IT’S good to see the “urgent” matter of the extrapolated extinction of the Japanese race in 1000 years being raised.

But we never hear about the doubling of the population of East Timor (an infertile and seasonally dry country already food-insecure) within 25 years due to unwanted and preventable births happening now.

The Japanese may well decide to have more children – for example, when an average couple can afford a home with more than one bedroom. In the meantime, they have everything to gain from population shrinkage. The East Timorese, on the other hand …

– Jane O’Sullivan, Chelmer, Queensland

Addendum: Letter from MP Kelvin Thompson regarding Melbourne’s sorry excuse for high-rise planning, 27/5:

THE article “Chasing the sun among high-rises a heated issue” (20/5) raises very important issues about Melbourne’s headlong rush to high-rise.

The loss of sunlight is a very important point. As is the fact that high-density high-rise buildings have big carbon footprints, consume more energy, generate more pollution and detract public amenity through the large shadows they cast. The proliferation of high-rise development is threatening not only our environment, but also our social fabric.

I am a fan of the suburban backyard. I believe children who grow up in concrete jungles are subject to more bullying and are more vulnerable to traps such as crime and drugs. What do you call a kid in a backyard? A free range kid. I think free range kids have a better time of it than battery kids. The more high-rise developments that are shoved down the throats of local communities, the more our communities will be suffocated.

– KELVIN THOMSON, MP, Federal Member for Wills

Collected letters

Herald-Sun:

Please go away

This is my reaction to yet another series of articles in today’s The Age that almost celebrate Melbourne’s extensive and excessive population growth.

“It’s my kind of town, say 666,000 new Melburnians”. That’s how many people have been added in the last decade. No wonder transport and infrastructure are near collapse. This growth has been deliberately encouraged by politicians and businessmen in the name of profit. Melbourne used to be a fairly pleasant place to live – at least, in comparison to many other cities – but this livability is being increasingly eroded. I am angry and fed up with the situation, but I am not in a position to move, and there is nowhere else to go in any case.

“Melbourne struggling as population booms to more than five million by 2025 and 6.5 million by 2050”, H-S, 25/3. A similar article from last week (the Google search page links get around the annoying recently-introduced paywall for now). Here are the alarming statistics:

Government-sanctioned vandalism

Two dismaying articles from The Age demonstrating an assult on the environment and residents’ rights by the Victorian Liberal government under Ted Baillieu.

“Baillieu reviews green laws”, 12/2. Native habitat is once again under threat due to the Liberal government’s seeking to remove excessive “red tape” (regulations). This despite that biodiversity is already much reduced:

Victorian National Parks Association executive director Matt Ruchel said numerous government and scientific reports over the last decades had shown Victoria as the most cleared and ecologically stressed state in Australia, with high numbers of threatened species.

“Planning reform blocks appeals”, 15/3. The overcrowding and destruction of once-pleasant established suburbs looks set to continue, and residents will not be notified, and have no right to appeal inappropriate housing developments near them. The anger and despair I feel at this is almost too much to be borne. And I am powerless to do anything about it. Planning Minister Matthew Guy is proving just as much an urban vandal as his predecessor, Justin Madden.

And, of course, a main factor behind each issue is Victoria’s continuing and relentless population growth, which is neither inevitable nor desirable (except to businesses such as the building industry which profit from it).

Some collected letters in response to both issues:

Tower travesty

“Mega Melbourne plan for skyscrapers in suburbs”, H-S (also at The Age). The latest idiotic proposal from so-called Planning Minister Matthew Guy and others is, in response to Melbourne’s unwanted and unnecessary growth, to massively expand the central business district and encourage the construction high-rise towers (developers must be rubbing their hands in glee). Of course this will destroy what character the city has left and turn it into yet another ugly megalopolis like so many other cities. Melbourne was nicer before the building of concrete-glass-steel skyscrapers, when its main buildings were the comparatively modest brick or stone structures of only a few storeys.

Letters in response to the planning criticism in my previous entry, H-S, 17/2:

Planners need to listen

ANDREW MacLeod, of the Committee for Melbourne, thinks Barry Humphries shouldn’t comment on planning because he’s not qualified in the area (“Stars should butt out”, February 16).

Mr MacLeod has no qualifications in planning either. Nor do most members of his committee.

Regardless, qualified planners have made many mistakes: think of the inner-city “slum clearance” programs of the 1960s or the old Gas and Fuel buildings.

Planners tend to make worse mistakes when they stop listening to the community. As well as being more democratic, genuine public participation produces better planning because it forces planners to justify their proposals.

This reduces the likelihood that they will make mistakes.

Melbourne needs more people like Geoffrey Rush, Barry Humphries and Mary Drost, and more planners who are prepared to share power with the public.

– Dr Paul Mees, senior lecturer in urban planning, RMIT

Possums, Barry should be heard

BARRY Humphries is a celebrity because of his keen observation and ability to show people and places in a humorous light.

He is eminently qualified to have a view on planning matters in his suburb of origin. Humphries is not just a dilettante, as implied by Andrew MacLeod. Furthermore, civic-minded residents such as Mary Drost are an essential force in mitigating adverse changes in established suburbs.

Andrew Macleod seems to have forgotten the concept of democracy and actually contradicts himself in saying that Mrs Drost is selfish to attempt to preserve gardens for people other than herself!

– Jill Quirk, East Malvern

Land grab

“Farm sale just like winning Lotto”, H-S. This is a dismaying trend around Melbourne and other cities, of farmers selling off valuable arable land to developers. They obviously don’t care about what will happen to their land or the environment (some of the land was initially put aside for native grassland); they are only greedily focused on short-term gain. We will all suffer for this in the future, and indeed are doing so now as the city relentlessly continues its cancerous population and urban growth.

“Celebrity heritage protesters should butt out of planning issues, says lobbyist”, H-S. The Committee for Melbourne chief executive criticized celebrities for supporting anti-development groups. The CFM is essentially a front for developers and business, neither who have interest in preserving the amenity of neighborhoods. A comment I sent in:

Developers are doing a lot more to “ruin the future of Melbourne for the future population” with their ugly high-density apartment towers! Residents should have every right to defend the livability of their suburbs, and if celebrities can aid them, so much the better.

“Brace yourself, highways to hell coming”, 5/2. Population growth and inadequate public transport are seeing freeways frequently gridlocked with increasing traffic. All the Government can think to do is scar the landscape with more roads, not tackle the problem at its source.

Collected articles

I have a backlog of various articles from the last 4 months that I meant to comment on, so much linkage follows!

High-rise hell

Some letters from the last few weeks:

6/11:

Ever-thinner slices

THE latest United Nations human development index (“Not quite Norway, but still a great place to call home”, theage.com.au, 3/11) shows it is clear that a nation’s population has little relationship to its ultimate economic strength. Countries that are better off per capita than Australia are smaller - Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Norway.

High immigration is the key driver to a “big Australia” but is this likely to make Australians better off? No. According to the Productivity Commission’s annual report for 2010-11, two benefits often attributed to immigration, despite mixed or poor evidence to support them, are that immigration is an important driver of per capita economic growth and that it can alleviate the problem of population ageing.

Among the 187 nations surveyed, Norway, Australia and the Netherlands topped the annual index while Congo, Niger and Burundi - with the highest population growth - came last. A rapidly increasing population mostly serves the interests of a few rich businesses, and produces more taxpayers for the government. For the rest of the public, it means our capital and social capital is cut into ever-thinner slices.

– Arthur Bassett, Blackburn South

16/11:

We always pay

THE controversial north-east road link connecting the ring road and the Eastern Freeway remains a threat.

It’s all about perpetual growth, and removing obstacles. “Big Victoria” requires monolithic concrete infrastructure and transport access for the (mainly) imported goods to all the mega-stores and shopping centres. It also requires ignoring peak oil and common sense. Corporate Victoria has the power to hijack our government’s agenda.

The link would destroy parklands, wetlands, heritage artists’ sanctuaries, Yarra River walking tracks, havens for wildlife, picnic areas, and sporting facilities.

Without government funding, this tunnel/freeway would involve tolling and private operators. The costs - including the loss of Melbourne’s intrinsic values - are always passed on to average Victorians.

– Chris Hooley, Viewbank

26/11 – these are in response to a 25/11 letter, reproduced below them:

Still happy to fight

I’M SORRY the people of Toronto either had no success in protecting the sunlight on their balconies or were too dispirited to even try (Letters, 25/11). The people of Melbourne still have a bit of spunk left to speak out about unwanted high-rise and other developments that are seen as disadvantageous to them. Canada, like Australia, suffers from high population growth and developers flourish and dictate terms in such an environment.

– Jill Quirk, president, Sustainable Population Australia (Victorian branch), East Malvern

At mercy of speculators

WHAT’S good for Toronto is not necessarily good for Melbourne. Most Melburnians don’t appreciate high-rise human “termite mounds” (as one Southbank resident called this blot on the landscape) overlooking and overshadowing our Yarra River and surrounding residential neighbourhoods (“Southbank skyscrapers ire”, The Age, 24/11).

These apartments are probably not even for sale in Australia. With another big Southbank development, apartments were sold off the plan overseas. It seems we poor suckers are at the mercy of developers and property speculators.

– Lewis Prichard, Hawthorn

Rankings have message

MELBOURNE the most liveable city in the world? Too right. So, to all the planners, developers and councillors, why would you want to change it? And just where did those cities jam-packed with apartments, crawling traffic and block buildings abutting each other with no garden in between rank? All the way down there.

– David Cathie, Mordialloc

The letter from Toronto:

Get over it

TO A Toronto resident, the controversy about a skyscraper in Southbank seems almost quaint (“Southbank skyscrapers ire”, The Age, 24/11). The location for this building is the centre of a major metropolis, right? If the tower is well designed, everyone should just relax and get used to the fact that big cities have big buildings. And Freshwater Place residents have to get over themselves. Do they expect the city to stop growing just to spare them the hardship of less sunlight on their balconies? Perhaps they should have opted for property in Poowong instead. Ironically, an article about a proposed 240-metre residential tower in downtown Toronto also appeared in the Toronto Star: “Toronto’s skyline heads for the clouds”. The article quotes the architect as saying, “I think 100 storeys is completely do-able in Toronto; that’s sort of the next generation of height.” The residents of Freshwater Place should check out the accompanying photo and prepare themselves for their future.

– Michael Harris, Toronto, Canada

“In city's middle-ring burbs, many towers rise”, 26/11. The dismaying sight of high-rise towers is now beginning to blight many suburbs, no thanks to the dysfunctional planning laws. People who oppose them are derided by architects and developers as “NIMBYs”, but the towers are an ugly eyesore and have a dehumanizing effect on the landscape over which they loom arrogantly. They block out sunlight and the sky, and give one a feeling of claustrophobia. They are touted as being enviromentally-efficient, but virtually all current structures require vast amounts of power and water imported from elsewhere, and certainly could not be self-sufficient. They are primarily built for investors and to make money, not to help the environment.

A quote regarding such structures from a science fiction novel:

She glanced down between her boots through the transparent deck of the ship as it passed over the center of Jejeno. The city was both a tribute to isenj engineering skills and an indictment of their stupidity. The forest of asymmetric towers – bronze, brown, copper, tan – and narrow streets created endless canyons. Shapakti said that it was an echo of isenj origins as termite-like animals living in giant mounds, but Esganikan had seen almost identical soaring buildings in the images of Earth. It was how greedy species built: it showed space was at a premium because they had filled it and out-priced it – yes, she understood Earth’s economy now, she understood it very well – and they didn’t care about the intrusion on the landscape. It was a statement of their contempt for all other life.

– Karen Traviss, Ally

Collected letters

Another truckload of letters!

Future nightmare

A brief but alarming article hidden in the depths of the 19/8 Herald-Sun:

People tipped to top 10bn

The world population will reach seven billion later this year, with increases in the number of people in Africa offsetting a drop in the birth rate elsewhere, according to a new French study.

Looking much further ahead, the National Institute for Demographic Studies predicts a continuing rise in the overall population figures until the total stabilises somewhere between nine and 10 billion worldwide by the end of the century.

The growth in the global population has been soaring since the 19^th century.

“It has increased seven fold over the last 200 years, topping seven billion in 2011, and is expected to reach nine or 10 billion by the end of the 21^st century,” the report said.

Seven countries now account for half the world’s population. China tops the list with more than 1.33 billion people, with another 1.17 billion in India. The other five countries, in order, are the United States, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan and Nigeria.

Things are bad enough now with 7 billion!

Letters in response to a 16/8 H-S article, where some lobby group (Committee for Melbourne) had the gall to suggest anti-development protest groups were responsible for unaffordable housing:

Power to the protesters

The Committee for Melbourne, with its campaign to squash more and more people into our city (“Priced out of home”, August 15), should be renamed the Committee Against Melbourne.

The UK, approximately the same size as Victoria, has 10 times our population, but more than 85 per cent of them live outside London.

We have four million people (70 per cent of our population) in our capital city, and the de velopment industry wants to squeeze in another four million, when it should be developing provincial cities.

More power to the protesters who fight to preserve our suburban gardens.

– Chris Curtis, Hurstbridge

How to make suburbs worse

So the Committee for Melbourne is bothered about subdivisions being blocked in “nice areas”.

Does it not occur to committee chief executive Andrew MacLeod that if all current residents in a particular suburb cashed in their backyards to developers, the suburb would no longer be “nice?”

The “liveability” of Melbourne is being jeopardised by the same thing that threatens reliability and quality of our food, water and energy – over population.

– Chris Hooley, Viewbank

Ugly inappropriate developments continue unabated in my suburb, and it is despairing to see. An opinion piece at CanDoBetter.net expresses the same sentiments over developments devouring what open land around Melbourne remains like a horde of locusts.