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 > The realities of living in Australia's first 200km city > Comments

The realities of living in Australia's first 200km city : Comments

By Peter Spearritt, published 14/3/2006

South-East Queensland is becoming a conurbation devoid of sub-tropical beauty while placing huge demands on water and energy supplies.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All
Pericles,

People really "need" very little to survive. No doubt you could also condemn people as selfish because they wanted something more than a joyless, limited vegetarian diet, one shower and change of clothes a week, or a very few square meters of living space. After all, if they accepted these standards, more people could be packed in. Very often people with your viewpoint are religious people who believe that God wants huge numbers of human souls, regardless of their quality of life on Earth, much as Tlaloc and the other Aztec deities were believed to want human blood and hearts.
Posted by Divergence, Friday, 17 March 2006 4:44:45 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
“Of course people want cars. Public transport is so poor and woefully inadequate that you'd only bother if you were desperate and had nothing else. Try getting home from a job late, getting out to do your shopping, racing home to cook, then going out late with friends. Without a car, all that takes forever.....or spending a fortune on cab fares.”

That’s because the cities and our lifestyles are built around the car. The author is arguing that we need to start designing cities that move people, not cars. Some of the most charming places in the world are built around walking distance communities. Trains freight goods in, and a variety of means get those goods to the shops and restaurants and newsagents that the pedestrians visit. As long as one is prepared to give up living in a tacky blonde brick McMansion and live in an attractively designed New Urbanism transport hub, then everything you need would be within a 10-minute walk. And instead of complaining about the traffic, you’d be enjoying the smell of coffee roasting, cooking out of one store window, veggies out of the next.

The peak oil crisis is coming, and it’s time to get serious about New Urbanism, from the way we build individual energy efficient homes through to the design of our cities and public transport systems. We should be investigating http://www.newurbanism.org very carefully, because nothing can replace oil with the quantities necessary. There is no silver bullet. Please read the submissions to the Federal Government oil enquiry.
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/rrat_ctte/oil_supply/submissions/sublist.htm

Lastly, no one here should worry about Pericles. He comes in, calls names, has his rant, and then when you respond with rational argument and points, he shifts his accusations elsewhere and diverts the subject without being polite enough to respond to your legitimate points and sources. I patiently, repeatedly, and obsessively attempted to engage him in the population thread. He misdirected into Global warming — which Time magazine just said has scientific consensus.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1176980,00.html

Do you know what I learned from all my efforts? Wikipedia is right.

“Do not feed the trolls”
Posted by eclipse, Thursday, 30 March 2006 9:12:09 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rob88, I beg to differ with your view regarding the Carlton & United Brewery site in Chippendale: the developer did not walk away because of disputes with Sydney City Council about carparking. The developer walked away because there is a general downturn in residential property prices (particularly for medium and high density residential) meaning that easy money can no longer be made by developers in this market in Sydney. They walked away for commercial reasons, but then tried to badmouth the City Council about delays (mostly caused by the developers themselves) and other issues. The Council actually negotiated on the numbers of carparking spaces and eventually allowed more carparking per dwelling than the existing residents of Chippendale have per dwelling (they made this concession as a large number of existing residents of Chippendale are renters with no cars, where the new development was perceived as likely to attract more owner-occupiers). There was some politics: on a few issues, the City Council decision didn't concede anything to the developers so the Council would look sympathetic to the Chippendale residents, but the Council did this knowing that their decisions would be overturned by the Central Sydney Planning Committee anyway. Decisions on developments worth over $2 million in the city of Sydney are made by the CSPC, which is stacked with a majority of State Government appointees. So in any case, don't blame Sydney City Council.
Posted by Johnj, Tuesday, 4 April 2006 8:28:49 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. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All

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