Greens hate Lakes

It was obvious at the March community consultation that a large lake option for Molongo was not on the cards. I was pleased to see that this was the case because at one time the planning bureaucrats seemed to believe that option would add $150 million in land value to Molongo. When I asked someone from one of the agencies about this they laughed and said that it was realised that there was no increased value because the lake disappeared into the river channel and was hardly visible from anywhere. To control the storm water they will use a series of small ponds on streams leading into the river. I doubt Rattenbury had anything to do with this decision.

I went to Uriarra Crossing regularly during the drought and it was scary how low the water level got. It would be pretty disastrous for that river corridor to build a dam in that location, I think, though I’m not an expert by any means.

I saw a platypus at Uriarra Xing years ago! Sign of a healthy ecosystem and I would appreciate if they wouldn’t mess with that. So good on the Greens for at least considering the environment indeed.

Deref said :

Wanting to maintain a natural river corridor is the same as “hating lakes”?

That’s one looooooooooong bow.

Indeed. Prefer to avoid damming of rivers and valuable riparian corridors where easily avoidable perhaps.

And the stormwater functions will be served by the ponds, with worthwhile visual amenity from them also.

For those lamenting the 70s urban design (with much of which I agree), those days also had scant regard for the natural environment (an unruly mess that had to be hammered and dozed into obedience) and their engineers did horrible things to waterways like turning them into nice straight concrete funnels. We have learnt from such mistakes and moved on.

I think we should learn how to restore a healthy ecosystem to our current city lakes, before we build any more. The government is currently investigating how to improve the water quality in Burley Griffin so it is again safe to swim in all summer. The ecosystems of all 4 lakes are not as healthy as they could be, which is difficult to achieve because of our city’s water pollutants.

trevar said :

How can these lakes be described as an urban amenity? An amenity is something that serves a purpose, and I really don’t think aesthetic qualities count as a purpose. Not that I object to any of our existing man-made lakes, but they just aren’t amenities. Toilet blocks are amenities; taps are amenities; street lights are amenities; roads are amenities: but lakes are recreational facilities, like playgrounds and skate parks and outdoor stages. Not that I object to any of them, my gripe is just about semantics; lakes are simply not urban amenities.

By your definition the exitsing lakes in Belconnen, Gungahlin and Tuggeranong are indeed urban amenities. Afterall each is nothing more than a toilet, which you correctly describe as urban amenities. Except for LBG the other lakes were built primarily for water control and quality, however were built with aesthetics in mind.

Martlark said :

The greens oppose any manifestation of big business. Which means anything that requires a big business to make/build it.Just another clear indication that they are more an anti-capitalist party than a real environmentalist party.

You might not like the Greens or their ideas, but that statement lacks logical rigour. Try again.

John Moulis said :

Ah yes, that terrible 1970s planning. When housing blocks were big enough to allow large back and front yards, high density living was non-existent and there was ample parkland along well designed streets as well as schools and local shops.

We wouldn’t want to go back to those dark days, would we?

+1

I’m reminded of the scene in The Simpsons where Lionel Hutz, the lawyer, says “Can you imagine a world without lawers?”

The greens oppose any manifestation of big business. Which means anything that requires a big business to make/build it.Just another clear indication that they are more an anti-capitalist party than a real environmentalist party.

How can these lakes be described as an urban amenity? An amenity is something that serves a purpose, and I really don’t think aesthetic qualities count as a purpose. Not that I object to any of our existing man-made lakes, but they just aren’t amenities. Toilet blocks are amenities; taps are amenities; street lights are amenities; roads are amenities: but lakes are recreational facilities, like playgrounds and skate parks and outdoor stages. Not that I object to any of them, my gripe is just about semantics; lakes are simply not urban amenities.

Ah yes, that terrible 1970s planning. When housing blocks were big enough to allow large back and front yards, high density living was non-existent and there was ample parkland along well designed streets as well as schools and local shops.

We wouldn’t want to go back to those dark days, would we?