SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So what is the deal with those NIMBY folk who fight against the government's urban consolidation policies and particular projects - e.g. Camberwell Station?

The whole purpose of Melbourne 2030 (or the concept of limiting urban consolidation to designated areas aka activity centres etc) was to replace the policy direction of the Kennett government which enabled somewhat uncontrolled and in some cases inappropriate urban consolidation to occur - which lead to the SOS movement.

Why is there this NIMBY attitude to urban consolidation aka Melbourne 2030? Don't these people care about the future of their city or the earth's natural ecosystem? Are advocates of NIMBY just selfish, self-centred people or is there something else involved here? Do you think that anything can be done, besides the Minister calling in projects when it suits him to make Melbourne 2030 more acceptable to the people?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,925 Posts
^^
Hit the nail on the head with NIMBYs ''being self-centred, selfish''
They dont care for Melbournes future, they only care for themselves.
I cant stand them for a second...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,621 Posts
I don't understand what NIMBY's fear about high rises? Having been to NY a few times I can say that the street life, excitement and general vibe of the place puts to shame anything we have in Australia. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with a building whether it's 20 or 60 stories tall.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,925 Posts
^^
They are scaired of the unknown, most of them would not of taken 1 step out of Australia to know what NYC street life was like, they only know NYC through TV shows like cop shows and the like. So it wouldnt be a positive outlook for them...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,864 Posts
I find myself sitting on the fence not sure which to jump when the NIMBY subject comes up. In general they drive me crazy, expecting their own little world to just stay as it is forever. But.....some times I see a building or area that has a real value and would like that aspect to be preserved Eg.....The St.Kilda Triangle site should be redeveloped with the winning design. But when I walk down past Camberwell Railway station I admire it as an intact example of it's era. South Yarra RS is from a similar era yet doesn't have the overall impact of Camberwell. So if highrise is developed over South Yarra I wouldn't object yet I would rather Camberwell stay preserved without modern development jammed up beside or over it. This is where decisions should be made about individual sites and not just a blanket rule.............IMO
PS, Dockside and Melbourneguy, I agree, I can see a similar situation in New York City.....Manhattan generally is a meca for highrise and even public places like Times Square are jammed with ever growing highrise development but many New Yorkers would not want to see such development in places like Greenwich Village or much of the lower rise area between Midtown and Lower Manhattan..........New York has fantastic street life in both extremes! This is why Melbourne NIMBY's should back off in most cases.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,402 Posts
Well said redbaron. Everyone is always angry about NIMBYS stopping developments but is somebody wanted to build the world's tallest building on the Royal Exhibition Building would you want that? I know I wouldn't. Just because we want density there are particular designs in particular locations which are not suitable- maybe they can build their development in the next street or somewhere- we aren't running out of room.. Personally I don't care for the Camberwell Station redevelopment. The station and whole shopping strip is fine how it is without more shopping centres.
 

·
JOIN YOUR UNION
Joined
·
1,319 Posts
http://www.theage.com.au/national/planning-slowed-by-politics-not-people-20090723-duvb.html

Planning slowed by politics, not people
Kate Lahey
July 24, 2009
A SENIOR Melbourne architecture academic has attacked the State Government for failing to address the city's needs, saying a lack of leadership is slowing good housing development.

Professor Kim Dovey of the University of Melbourne's school of design spoke at a business lunch yesterday, at which Planning Minister Justin Madden was guest speaker.

Mr Madden used his own speech to discuss population growth and explain the Government's planning policy, which aims to have more than half of 600,000 new dwellings built within existing suburbs in the next 20 years.

Professor Dovey said the State Government was too afraid of a political backlash to implement its own policy and the fear was unnecessary.

"The problem is not NIMBY [not-in-my-backyard] residents or parochial councils, so much as a failure to plan and to lead at state level," he said.

"The Premier should be concerned."

Professor Dovey argued for planning controls to increase density on transport corridors and give certainty to residents and developers.

The Government should also encourage imaginative design to foster public support, as former premier Jeff Kennett did, he said.

"Instead of erecting signs saying 'it's all part of the plan', Kennett framed Melbourne with salutes to a state 'on the move'. He got away with the abandonment of public planning because these projects showed he knew how to get things done," Professor Dovey said.

"Now we have neither public planning nor vision and we are about to invest massively in bad infrastructure."
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top