This article by Kenneth Davidson in The Age puts the finger on the weak spot in making the shift to a sustainable liveable city. Davidson, writing about Melbourne, says:
'Melbourne 2030 - Planning for sustainable growth, was released in 2002 with great fanfare by Premier Steve Bracks, Transport Minister Peter Batchelor and Planning Minister Mary Delahunty. Here was a vision for the future of Melbourne that would preserve the city's famous liveability in the context of a growing population by focusing development in 115 so-called activity centres that would "reduce the number of private motorised vehicle trips".Fair enough. But the whole plan was predicated on an upgraded public transport system that would increase public transport's share of all motorised trips in Melbourne from 10 per cent now to 20 per cent by 2030.'
Davidson says that it is hard to escape the conclusion that Melbourne 2030 is simply a fig leaf designed to provide a rationale for the enrichment of developers who have had the foresight to buy up property in the designated activity centres.
As in Adelaide, the Brack's Government is failing to implement Melbourne 2030 in a way that protects and enhances Melbourne's liveability.
The same has happened in Adelaide with Jan Geyl's 2002 Public Spaces and Public Life urban plan that addressed ways to roll back a car invaded city to create more humanised public spaces. Adelaide is unwilling to change its urban culture from car first to people first. It failed the first test to block the east-west traffic flow through Victoria Square to create a more people-friendly public space in the heart of the city.
The argument by the business-dominated Harbison City Council said the city's economy would suffer from humanizing the city. So the plans for a people-friendly city gather dust.
Melbourne and Adelaide become less liveable cities.
Case study: Broadmeadows, City of Hume.
Developer (name escapes me) for years (and years) has had vacant land adjoining a number of schools (at one of which my better 3/4s works). Discussion paper from council moots relocating schools (won't bother recounting unanimous hair-pulling out response of teachers to the proposal of multi-story schools). Developer will construct premium high rise accommodation where once there were classrooms and large playing areas. Given the demographics of the area, the immediate gut reaction of current residents is to view high rise accommodation (no matter the "gentrification" spin) as a revisiting of the Housing Commission era that their parents or grandparents had left behind long ago.
Posted by: Sedgwick on August 19, 2004 11:54 AMSedgwick,
There is not much concern for liveable public places in your example is there.
Similarly with all the development along the Glenelg foreshore in Adelaide. It's all high rise at the expense of public space. In fact public space was given by local and state government to subsidize the ugly development.
Posted by: Gary Sauer-Thompson on August 24, 2004 07:31 AM