23 million and counting

Australia’s population officially reached 23 million on 23 April; a milestone that was generally reported positively. The population is small compared to many other countries (as is pointed out with tedious regularity), but Australia does not have a great amount of habitable land, so most of the population tends to live along the coastline, and much of that is clumped into the major cities.

Melbourne is, unfortunately, leading the nation’s population growth, and the negative effects of this are ever increasing: chronic traffic congestion (is it a coincidence that road rage is on the increase?), increased housing prices, inappropriate high-density developments in suburbs, pressure on health care, public transport and other services … the list goes on. Little if anything about this manic growth is for the better. From my perspective – I live in a suburb of Melbourne – quality of life is definitely deteriorating and the stress from this is continual. The State Government makes nebulous promises about improving infrastructure, but at the same time they cut funding.

Much of that infrastructure seems to only involve building more environmentally-destructive roads – an example being this brief report from my local newspaper (also online):

Plants face chop

ENDANGERED vegetation will be removed to make way for the new Dingley bypass, despite objections from green groups.

Greater Dandenong Council has given VicRoads the go-ahead to rip out a large old tree and vegetation, classified as “of very high conservation significance”, from the 0.19ha swampy woodland in the Westall Rd reserve.

Four environmental groups have slammed the unadvertised proposal. They say an overpass should be built to protect them.

Engineering services director Bruce Rendall said the proposal was not advertised because no third party would suffer.

It is similar to the Westerfield heritage woodlands being bulldozed through in 2010 (see 10/7/2010, 24/10/2010 entries) for the Frankston bypass. Native bushland continues to be razed for so-called “progress” and one feels so powerless and frustrated that it can’t be stopped. The Australian Aborigines lived here for 40,000 years or more, but in all that vast span of time they never did as much damage as did the arrival of European settlers in the last 200 years. The estimated population of Aborigines before settlement/invasion was around a million or so – something the fragile landscape here could cope with.

Some recent letters:

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):

Collected letters

Some letters saved from the last two months.

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.

Collected letters

Letters saved from the last month.

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.

Colonization by stealth?

“The Unintended Consequences Of China’s One-child Policy”, io9, 3/10. I usually emit a groan when this topic comes up, as the critics of the policy come out in force. The article points out the issues with such a policy:

• Males outnumbering females due to a long-standing cultural preference for boys.
• “Surplus males” – men greatly outnumbering women, which can be an instigator of social unrest from frustrated males. This was “traditionally” (if not consciously) dealt with by war.
• The elderly outnumbering the young in a declining population.

As more than one commenter remarks there, however, what else was the Chinese government to do? If they allowed unrestrained reproduction the population would be even greater than the already huge figure (1.4 billion or so), with all the social problems and environmental damage that result (and still are afflicting the country, anyway). The policy does not apply to everyone, anyway – some ethnic groups, for example, are exempt (perhaps to keep them mollified?), and some cities are reversing the policy to address the aging problem (see previous entries with the China label).

Another traditonal way of dealing with “surplus people” is to export them, and China is certainly doing this – Australia is a popular destination. However this strategy can incite resentment amongst the host country’s citizens as they face increased competition for living space and jobs, as described this article: “In Africa’s warm heart, a cold welcome for Chinese”, Reuters, 18/9. Many African citizens are growing resentful of increased Chinese immigration there, as the latter can undercut them with cheap imported labor and goods. They also have no qualms about bribery when deemed necessary.

China is also, to put it bluntly, plundering the rest of the world for resources, such as Australia and Africa for minerals and farmland. This is also another potential source of conflict, though those raising alarm about this – such as recent controversy over the sale of a large cotton farm to Chinese investors – are invariably branded “xenophobic”. With future food and resource security at stake, though, why is this so unreasonable? I doubt the Chinese government has any scruples about their activities. In Africa’s case, China is effectively colonizing and exploiting the continent, as Europe did in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries – the term for this new version is neocolonialism.

Edit, 28/10: forgot to mention Tibet as an example.

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.