SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Wolf in sheep's clothing
Joined
·
3,271 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Melbourne

Sunday 7th November

Melbourne's population is over 4 million
They are planning for 8 million

"Is 8 million too many?", and "Infrastructure, who pays for it?

Sponsor: PLANNING BACKLASH INC.

EVERYONE and anyone interested in Melbourne's population is invited to attend Population: Melbourne's Planning Puzzle at 4pm on Sunday 7 November.

The forum will feature guest speakers Andrew MacLeod, CEO of the Committee for Melbourne, and Kelvin Thomson MP, Federal Member for Wills.

It will be held in the Richmond Town Hall, 333 Bridge Road, Richmond.

The panel members are Melina Sehr, Rupert Mann, David O'Brien and Mary Drost. Moderator David Trenerry. The forum is sponsored by Planning Backlash Inc. and will address questions such "Is 8 million too many?", and "Infrastructure, who pays for it?".

http://www.population.org.au/
 

·
skyscraper connoisseur
Joined
·
6,206 Posts
The King Island should become a penal colony again so that mainland Aussies can dump village idiots there who likes green pastures and quarter acre blocks. It should be a project to demonstrate whether inbreeding creates sustainable planning decisions in the long term.

This pet project could be funded by governments across the world who suffered long enough from violent nimbys. I'm sure the NSW government alone can somehow find savings when they send village idiots to an island in Bass Strait.

But we won't tell this to nimbys. Instead we'll promote this as a Retirement village.
 

·
Yes. No. Potato?
Joined
·
3,023 Posts

·
Wolf in sheep's clothing
Joined
·
3,271 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
:rofl:


Also JD, are you promoting this event or are you simply advising or informing people about this kind of "evil" event?
Simply informing... IMHO people who are pro-development should attend as many NIMBY events as possible. We need to be heard. I'm tired of a few NIMBYs speaking on my behalf.
 

·
Wolf in sheep's clothing
Joined
·
3,271 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Not in my backyard! App can spot eyesores in the making


source New Scientist

(New Scientist Via Acquire Media NewsEdge) IT IS the dream app for Nimbys everywhere: an augmented reality (AR) iPhone app that allows you to visualise what new developments will look like. That means you can complain, if necessary before construction begins, which could make life easier for town planners.

Interested parties can view a 3D digital model of the proposed build in situ, so they can work out how it might affect them, says Eckart Lange, head of landscape planning at the University of Sheffield in the UK.

He has been looking at different visualisation tools as part of a project called the Urban River Corridors and Sustainable Living Agendas, which aims to regenerate urban rivers. With the Walkabout 3D Mobile app installed on their iPhone or iPad, visitors to a building site can view the 3D model, created with Google's tool SketchUp, overlaid on the landscape. They can check if the work will overlook their property, block out sunlight or simply be an eyesore, he says.

Planners often have to use models that are not very realistic or interactive, says Wilde. "It's really valuable to be able to show people in the fresh air what future landscapes will look like alongside existing ones." So far the AR app has been used as part of the planning application to build a new park in the heart of Sheffield, which has walls that can act as flood defences.


http://sports.tmcnet.com/news/2011/04/02/5419186.htm
 

·
®
Joined
·
6,017 Posts
^^ some one needs to create an App that spots good designs and future high-rise /mid-rise tower possibilities.... or better still an App that can provide an insight into where the nimby's are most likely to find their next disagreement with pro-developers next...
 

·
Wolf in sheep's clothing
Joined
·
3,271 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Poll Do you think that we are overdeveloping our cities?

http://news.domain.com.au/domain/bl...ing-apartment-blocks-20110411-1daoi.html#poll


...Because if services can’t manage, instead of improving an area, large developments risk slowly choking suburbs to death.

That’s what is being argued in a stoush that’s already underway in the inner west of Sydney, where the former NSW government gave the green light to developers to build 19-storey apartment blocks. Ashmore Estate, as it is known, is surrounded by 1800s terraces, a few new triple-storey townhouses, and a good smattering of six-storey apartment units, some only just completed.

Just two days ago I stood on the south-eastern corner of this proposed development watching the cars go by as I waited to cross the road. Trying to make it to the other side without the traffic lights would have been like playing chicken.

It was a small moment in time but a sign that the roads already aren’t coping with the number of people they now have to carry. I used to live around this area so I am horribly familiar with the difficulty of cramming onto a bus in the morning, or squeezing into a busy train.

This proposed development straddles the gentrified suburbs of Alexandria and Erskineville. It’s an area where the existing road and transport infrastructure is already struggling, partly because it operates as an artery funnelling traffic from the south into the city. That’s without the influx of an extra 5200 people, all needing to get to work, and many owning a car or two as well.

It’s easy to see why residents are up in arms.
 

·
Champagne Socialist
Joined
·
11,950 Posts
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/so...ght-find-itll-grow-on-you-20110422-1drem.html

Big Melbourne isn't to be feared, you might find it'll grow on you
Jake Niall
April 23, 2011

MELBOURNE'S trams are slowing, in yet another symptom of the city's unexpected growth. Increasingly, the growing population is viewed as a tumour that chokes the arteries of a once very liveable metropolis.

It's easily forgotten, however, that in 1990, at the onset of an awful recession, the trams weren't moving at all. They were parked in the CBD during a tram drivers' strike, in what remains a potent symbol of Melbourne's stagnation of the early '90s.

We certainly weren't ''on the move'' then, as Jeff's number plates soon proclaimed - except to Surfers Paradise and Noosa Heads.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Victorians of the early '90s were the nation's Mexicans, the Murray our Rio Grande - although the Tweed was the river that economic refugees crossed in the late Kirner/early Kennett years, as sacked public servants took the Queensland option.

Back in 1993, as we grimly prepared for a rust-bucket future as Australia's Pittsburgh or Detroit, historian Geoffrey Blainey wrote in The Age: ''Victoria is again at the crossroads. If it turns in the wrong direction - or does not turn at all - it is in danger of repeating the damaging exodus of the 1890s depression. Admittedly, many people will point out that Victoria's roads will be less congested, and the smog and bay pollution will be lower … if population grows slower, and they are probably right.

''But if Victoria grows too slowly, they will also find that their own chances of a job or the kind of job they prefer are smaller, that friends and family are more likely to move interstate, and that Victorian cultural and sporting life loses some of its vitality.''

Blainey's outlook was mainly pessimistic, predicting that ''the exodus to other states is likely to continue in a sequence of dribbles and outpourings for many years'' unless Victoria got its act together.

Well, these dire scenarios didn't come to pass; thankfully, historians are better at predicting the past than the future. Instead of turning into Detroit, or ''the perfect place to make a movie about the end of the world'' as Ava Gardner allegedly called it, Melbourne is a burgeoning city of 4.1 million people.

As the Committee for Melbourne projects that it will swell to 8 million around 2060, Melbourne is becoming the Big M, a metropolis of genuine size and clout that is far more cosmopolitan, alive and sophisticated than it was in the 1990s. The widespread view that population growth is a disease that, left unchecked, will bring urban armageddon to our once quaint village, is ridiculous.

Would you prefer that, by curtailing growth and shutting up shop - thereby retaining ''liveability'' (itself dependent upon economic growth) - Melbourne reverses the restoration that has taken place over the past 15 years? The Big M is a better city at 4 million than 3 million, and it will better again at 5 million, provided planning and infrastructure are adequate. It has superior places to eat and drink, improved entertainment, sporting facilities, cultural and economic opportunities. Best of all, it has developed the self-confidence of a larger metropolis, shedding the insecure parochialism that long characterised its relationship to Sydney.

Indeed, Sydney's recent struggles should serve as a salutary lesson to Melbourne on what happens when you do not build infrastructure to cope with growth. In the late '90s, then New South Wales premier Bob Carr spoke in favour of limiting Sydney's expansion - in effect, talking down the bigger Sydney. As the KPMG demographer Bernard Salt observes, Sydney has been on the skids ever since.

Admittedly, the advent of 605,000 extra Melburnians since 2001 creates problems: worsening traffic, crowded trains and insufficient housing supply has driven prices to ludicrous heights. But for all the whingeing, the positives of the Big Melbourne far outweigh the negatives.

Salt, noting that expansion has created a ''sexier'' city with a global outlook, warns that seeking to halt the population growth runs the risk of ''the Adelaide-ification'' of Melbourne - ''a frightening prospect''. Larger cities are invariably more attractive - when visiting the US, who detours from New York to Indianapolis? Melbourne isn't crowded, either. If it had London's density, Melbourne's population would be 12 million.

Our politicians should refrain from dog-whistling on population/immigration, when they well know that Australia, as a nation of 22 million almost the geographic size of the United States, can accommodate many millions more without trashing living standards. Indeed, population growth has underwritten our prosperity, helping to quarantine Australia from the global financial crisis. There is a compelling humanitarian case, too, for good global citizens to share their abundance.

During the dismal federal election, Tony ''stop the boats'' Abbott and Julia ''I do not believe in the idea of a Big Australia'' Gillard pandered to the persistent small-minded part of the Australian character. Abbott wasn't whistling so much as barking with the dogs, while Gillard appeared to be deploying an ingenious double dog-whistle - her talk of a small and ''sustainable Australia'' appealing simultaneously to rottweilers on the right and lefty labradors, to the constituents of both Pauline Hanson and Bob Brown.

Fear, as Arthur Calwell said, is the most potent force in Australian politics. But the Big Melbourne is not to be feared. The greater danger is that the city will deviate, or even retreat, from an expansion that has enlarged our lives and opportunities.

Jake Niall is a senior writer.
 

·
Chip on my shoulder (BBQ)
Joined
·
3,135 Posts
Jake Niall is a boofhead sports journalist. He wouldn't know dick about government budgetary processes.

The idea of high population growth is great, but without money and therefore infrastucture, real problems emerge.

The "journalist", if fair dinkum, should nominate areas of the Victorian budget that should be slashed to cater for unrestrained growth. Mental health? Child services? Justice? The EPA?

It is banal for him to simply cheer for population growth like he may cheer for Collingwood at the MCG. The process of reasonably managing population growth is terribly difficult and requires really hard decisions by governments and a lot of forward planning.

Serious analysis requires serious minds - not some glorified jock who likes to cheer from the grandstand.

P.S. I am all for strong population growth - as long as it is planned.
 

·
..- ... . .-.
Joined
·
761 Posts
The money to support population growth ultimately comes from those same extra people through taxes. This is independent of the rate at which that population growth occurs.

I agree that population and infrastructure development need to be carefully balanced and Niall's argument is simplistic, but it makes a refreshing change from simplistic anti-growth rants.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top