Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Opinion

Expert strata, facilities & building management services

Community Spaces vs Social Housing

By Paul Costigan 20 December 2017 3
Photo: Paul Costigan.

Photo: Paul Costigan.

With Canberra having such an informed and aware community, one would have thought that a community-focused government planning minister would have surfaced by now – one committed to development and the future growth of the city while simultaneously embracing the enhancement of (rather than reducing) the city’s amenities that are admired internationally.

The most disappointing aspect of recent ACT Governments has been the lack of champions for such matters from within the government. What has been witnessed is a set of government Ministers all singing from their own page – not one relevant to the communities who elect them.

The big unresolved issue for local communities remains the ACT Government’s redefinition of community spaces – green spaces, parklands, and areas of urban forests. Having such a contentious matter unresolved and with the government showing all indications that this approach will remain for the foreseeable future, the trust that people were hoping to build with the ACT Government post the 2016 election, is simply not there.

The government has established battle lines based on it having the high moral ground in its quest to solve historic problems of its own doing – being the lack of social housing. Residents are being asked to choose between the future of important community amenities that should be provided through community spaces – versus – the overdue need to provide for a range of housing needs.

Of course, people agree with the need to simply get on with the provision of social housing (instead of constantly talking about it and setting up ‘Have-Your-Say’ surveys). The issue is that once upon a time such social agendas were imbedded into everyday planning as opposed to being afterthoughts.

Such a policy and planning approach was sacrificed years ago when the planning agenda took on the priority that land sales drive development.

Across Canberra, this push for diminishing the urban amenity has seen residents come together through their community groups to voice opposition to this unfair and stupid approach.

The government has responded largely with media releases and dog whistles to make out that residents are seeking to keep urban amenities and their green spaces at the cost of social housing.

Photo: Paul Costigan.

Photo: Paul Costigan.

Such debates are underway in Dickson, within the Campbell community, Weston Creek, and have surfaced with the two development proposals across the back of Red Hill and Garran. (We must thank Caroline Le Couteur for her efforts in standing up for residents in the debates with this government and the developer lobby).

Such spaces are valuable assets now. However, as the suburbs continue to be in-filled – these community assets will be in a huge demand. These spaces will become an even greater necessity for the health and welfare of the future generations.

I am not sure of the solution here. The election of our government is not community-based. Rather, it is one that favours the major parties – whereby we have party nominated candidates whose allegiances are locked into their party’s own set of values – that are more linked to some fictitious community rather than the ones that reside here in Canberra.

In 2018, many residents will have to continue the advocacy to retain their urban amenities. This government will most likely continue the emotional blackmail of how such amenities need to be sacrificed for urgent requirement such as social housing. This argument is totally unnecessary.

What has been missing is – planning. City planning would allow for both these crucial needs to be considered equally. This government needs to cease this destructive approach of having these ‘either/or’ debates.

We desperately need a sophisticated, intelligent and visionary approach to the planning of our wonderful city. Let’s hope we see some of this in 2018.

Dickson Supermarket DA update: At the time of writing, there has been not a sound from ACAT on the appeal against the proposal for a supermarket complex (2 supermarkets and a tower block) next to Woolworths and the Dickson Library. This appeal commenced in August 2016 – was heard during December 2016 through to March 2017 – but silence ever since. Who knows?

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
3 Responses to
Community Spaces vs Social Housing
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Leon Arundell 11:14 am 23 Dec 17

“Community spaces vs social housing” is a false dichotomy. The government can provide additional social housing by buying or renting existing dwellings. Higher densities can be obtained without sacrificing community space, by replacing existing low density dwellings with higher density dwellings.

bringontheevidence 4:11 pm 20 Dec 17

I wonder what you mean by ‘planning’ Paul? From what I can see, Canberra has a very tightly controlled planning regime.

There’s a very clear plan to increase density in the Inner North, with clearly designated areas of mixed-use zoning along Northbourne (8 levels), backed by RZ4 zoning behind in Dickson and the other suburbs (3-4 level residential), then a band of RZ3 (townhouse), before reaching lower density RZ2 (sub-dividable resi) and RZ1 (detached). Residents are clear about what’s allowed near them, and developers are clear about what they are allowed to build.

I think the issue is that you simply don’t like the planning that is in place, and you would like to see your area remain single detached dwellings on big blocks, and you would like to be able to continue to be able to drive to your local shops where there are plenty of free parking spots and little traffic.

The problem with keeping a suburb like Dickson low density is that it forces everyone else to move out to the far suburbs, leading to endless surburban sprawl, or forces them to live in tiny apartments in tall towers in the few parts of the city where it’s allowed.

Thankfully the ACT Government represents the interests of everyone when it makes planning decisions, not just the interests of a minority group.

A_Cog 1:53 pm 20 Dec 17

By thanking Le Couteur, you missed the devil in the detail. Core ACT Greens goals are infill and density, which come at the expense of local residents. Just look at all the public housing along Northbourne.

“Innovative Social Housing” means CHEAP and that means free land… ie, green space.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site