The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Modern families: fact from fiction > Comments

Modern families: fact from fiction : Comments

By Ross Elliott, published 3/7/2012

The latest census results don't justify the claims being made about housing and modern preference.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
Holy catfish Batman! Kevin Rudd has an evil twin from a parallel universe! Unless Ross is our universe's version and Kevin is the evil twin.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Tuesday, 3 July 2012 10:28:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I used to think that the superannuation industry should win the spin of the century award, but I think the developers should share in it. They have succeeded both in forcing higher densities on our pleasant suburbs and in expanding the urban growth boundary.

It is true that most people still live in detached housing and that most want to, but the blocks of land on which those detached houses have been built are much smaller than they were 20, 30 or 40 years ago. It is common to find blocks of around 300 square metres in outer metropolitan subdivisions, rather than blocks of 700 or 800 square metres that used to be the standard. (I donít thing the quarter acre was ever the typical block.)

The Hamer Liberal government established green wedges and development corridors as the supposedly permanent shape of Melbourne 40 years ago. It is poor policy to squash people inside the UGB and it is poor policy to push that UGB out forever. We have plenty of land in the state. It is not necessary to have one city with 70 per cent of the stateís population in it. We need to decentralise and to connect provincial cities to Melbourne by fast transport links.

I am providing a link to some long posts on the history of Melbourneís green wedges (which themselves have links to all sorts of other relevant documents) and to some facts and figures relevant to planning that the trendy inner-city, high-income, high-carbon footprint sardinistas do not appreciate when they look down on the low-income outer suburbanites who dare to drive cars and have gardens with their houses:
http://melbourneurbanist.wordpress.com/2010/10/20/what-should-we-do-about-melbourne/.
Posted by Chris C, Tuesday, 3 July 2012 10:30:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great well researched article! Those who proudly trumpet "our" desire to live like sardines crammed into smaller and smaller boxes, are high rise developers and or, the architects who design them?
Why? well it costs a lot less per unit, to build high rise towers/apartment blocks!
High rise towers would be actually acceptable, if no building ever cast its shadow on any other building; just green space, and that all the waste they created, was converted onsite into carbon neutral, lower cost power and endless free hot water.
While the capital risks are higher, so also are the returns, but particularly if a pro high rise, higher density govt, is limiting urban land release, that in effect removes choice from those, who might prefer to raise their kids in a detached house, that includes a yard, a cubby, swings, backyard cricket etc.
It is a much healthier lifestyle that ensures that we get enough outdoors to maintain a healthy vitamin D level, so very important for immune function.
On average, high rise/city dwellers produce 2.5 times more carbon than their country cousins! If the greens were fair dinkum about climate change they'd stop advocating denser more gridlocked cities.
The way out is rapid rail.
A smart govt would first resume land, and then rezone areas alongside proposed stations. The sale of the rezoned land would pay all the outgoings for establishing the new high speed rail links, and commuters would prefer them to the usual 2-4 hour commute.
And given the energy efficiency comparison, probably at significant less cost than piloting the family wagon to and from work.
Moreover, the very much shorter travel time, would enhance quality family time. Travel time could be productive work/study time, utilising the laptop/ mobile phone etc.
We simply must decentralise!
There is a way forward; and that way is not crime ridden gridlocked and ghettoised cities!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 3 July 2012 12:33:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy