Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Opinion

In the fight of your life
you need the best at your side

Mount Ainslie revamp – let’s improve but not go over the top

By Alexandra Craig 15 December 2015 45

iStock_000042702586_635

Last week the government announced plans to hold a design competition for a revamp of the Mount Ainslie summit.

At the moment, there’s not a lot up there. Some benches, an info sign, some parking spots and that’s about it. And I reckon that’s exactly how it should stay.

I’m not opposed to new benches or new signs or new landscaping, but there has been mention of the possibility of having a cafe or restaurant built up there.

Minister Rattenbury did say “I don’t think anyone in Canberra would want to see anything gaudy on this landscape, anything that was over the top,” but I think if a cafe was allowed to be built up there, it would look tacky and would ruin the peacefulness of Mount Ainslie.

I know they want to attract more people to visit Mount Ainslie, but if there was a busy cafe up there and a lot of noise, I wouldn’t go up there anymore. I’d go to Mount Taylor instead. I don’t go for a run up a mountain to be met by a billion people at the top.

If people absolutely must have a coffee when they get to the summit, I wouldn’t be opposed to seeing some kind of agreement in place with a coffee van and them being allowed to turn up on weekends or something similar.

Mount Ainslie is a nature reserve. Months of construction on a new facility I think would be just awful. I would avoid like the plague. Let’s keep Mount Ainslie as it is.


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
45 Responses to
Mount Ainslie revamp – let’s improve but not go over the top
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
rubaiyat 12:45 am 22 Dec 15

dungfungus said :

rubaiyat said :

Maya123 said :

rommeldog56 said :

Maya123 said :

People make negative jokes about densification in housing, but while the population is allowed to grow at its runaway rate it will happen. Don’t blame the ACT government for that either; they are just responding to the population policies of the Federal Government, which has been the same under both Liberal and Labor governments. If you don’t like the way housing is going, campaign to slow/stop the population growth. Don’t go for the symptom; go for the route cause.

There isn’t some sort of “runaway population” growth in Canberra. Nor is there really a shortage of land. Your attempt to deflect the state of Canberra in relation to the incredibly poor ACT Gov’t planning and fiscal priority setting and their obvious weakness to pressure from developers and tram consortia, is shallow.

It’s not the Feds fault – in fact, the Feds saw the benefits cost ratio for the Canberra tram of 1:1.2 as being not worth investing in.

Instead, the tram is going ahead as a ppp as a vehicle to accelerate densification along its corridor.

Have you been to the cement jungle called the Molonglo Valley ?

You can feel the extra heat radiating out of all the poorly sited, poorly built & poorly designed high density concrete monstrosities. That is an example of what densification looks like – or at least the ACT Gov’t version of it.

So, people joke about densification tongue in cheek. I for one haven’t yet had the frontal lobotomy necessary to accept the ACT Gov’t spin on all this.

But maybe I need to join the queue…….

Canberra’s population in 2000: 311,000 and in 2011: 356,000. That’s about 15% growth. Those people need to be housed somewhere. Now, in the light of that population growth I don’t follow the relevance of you argument at all. The problem is more and more people, and the ACT is not responsible for immigration. Or are you inferring that the population of Australia is steady and somehow that extra growth in local population has been drawn from elsewhere in Australia! (Australia’s total birth rate in 2014 was 1.80 babies per woman, while Canberra is 1.594. (Aust. Bureau of Statistics))

An international comparison:
Bangladesh’s population rose in 2015 1.20%. Canberra’s population growth from 2000 to 2011 averaged a yearly average of slightly more than that.

“Nor is there really a shortage of land.”
So true, what other use is there for those paddocks than putting housing on them. Food’s not a problem. Last time I checked there was plenty wrapped in plastic at the supermarket. And beside it’s on a little bit of farm land taken this year and the the next and the next and the next and the…only a little bit each year. Not a worry.

First they whinge about the price of land, then they whinge about the price of food.

They build a gross MacMansion, with double/triple garages, at the back of Whoop Whopp to park their gas guzzlers on and then complain about the mortgage, the cost of driving and “lack of roads”. A “lack” that has buried a quarter of our cities under concrete, and tar, and drowned out intelligent conversation on the subject.

Yep, it makes as much sense as building a couple of ski chalets in a national park.

They are building ski chalets on Mt Ainslie?

Not advisable even in the soon to be rebranded Snowy Mountains, where the ski seasons are now inexplicably short …something to do with cutting down trees north of Canberra.

dungfungus 10:18 pm 21 Dec 15

rubaiyat said :

Maya123 said :

rommeldog56 said :

Maya123 said :

People make negative jokes about densification in housing, but while the population is allowed to grow at its runaway rate it will happen. Don’t blame the ACT government for that either; they are just responding to the population policies of the Federal Government, which has been the same under both Liberal and Labor governments. If you don’t like the way housing is going, campaign to slow/stop the population growth. Don’t go for the symptom; go for the route cause.

There isn’t some sort of “runaway population” growth in Canberra. Nor is there really a shortage of land. Your attempt to deflect the state of Canberra in relation to the incredibly poor ACT Gov’t planning and fiscal priority setting and their obvious weakness to pressure from developers and tram consortia, is shallow.

It’s not the Feds fault – in fact, the Feds saw the benefits cost ratio for the Canberra tram of 1:1.2 as being not worth investing in.

Instead, the tram is going ahead as a ppp as a vehicle to accelerate densification along its corridor.

Have you been to the cement jungle called the Molonglo Valley ?

You can feel the extra heat radiating out of all the poorly sited, poorly built & poorly designed high density concrete monstrosities. That is an example of what densification looks like – or at least the ACT Gov’t version of it.

So, people joke about densification tongue in cheek. I for one haven’t yet had the frontal lobotomy necessary to accept the ACT Gov’t spin on all this.

But maybe I need to join the queue…….

Canberra’s population in 2000: 311,000 and in 2011: 356,000. That’s about 15% growth. Those people need to be housed somewhere. Now, in the light of that population growth I don’t follow the relevance of you argument at all. The problem is more and more people, and the ACT is not responsible for immigration. Or are you inferring that the population of Australia is steady and somehow that extra growth in local population has been drawn from elsewhere in Australia! (Australia’s total birth rate in 2014 was 1.80 babies per woman, while Canberra is 1.594. (Aust. Bureau of Statistics))

An international comparison:
Bangladesh’s population rose in 2015 1.20%. Canberra’s population growth from 2000 to 2011 averaged a yearly average of slightly more than that.

“Nor is there really a shortage of land.”
So true, what other use is there for those paddocks than putting housing on them. Food’s not a problem. Last time I checked there was plenty wrapped in plastic at the supermarket. And beside it’s on a little bit of farm land taken this year and the the next and the next and the next and the…only a little bit each year. Not a worry.

First they whinge about the price of land, then they whinge about the price of food.

They build a gross MacMansion, with double/triple garages, at the back of Whoop Whopp to park their gas guzzlers on and then complain about the mortgage, the cost of driving and “lack of roads”. A “lack” that has buried a quarter of our cities under concrete, and tar, and drowned out intelligent conversation on the subject.

Yep, it makes as much sense as building a couple of ski chalets in a national park.

Maya123 8:45 pm 21 Dec 15

rubaiyat said :

Maya123 said :

rommeldog56 said :

Maya123 said :

People make negative jokes about densification in housing, but while the population is allowed to grow at its runaway rate it will happen. Don’t blame the ACT government for that either; they are just responding to the population policies of the Federal Government, which has been the same under both Liberal and Labor governments. If you don’t like the way housing is going, campaign to slow/stop the population growth. Don’t go for the symptom; go for the route cause.

There isn’t some sort of “runaway population” growth in Canberra. Nor is there really a shortage of land. Your attempt to deflect the state of Canberra in relation to the incredibly poor ACT Gov’t planning and fiscal priority setting and their obvious weakness to pressure from developers and tram consortia, is shallow.

It’s not the Feds fault – in fact, the Feds saw the benefits cost ratio for the Canberra tram of 1:1.2 as being not worth investing in.

Instead, the tram is going ahead as a ppp as a vehicle to accelerate densification along its corridor.

Have you been to the cement jungle called the Molonglo Valley ?

You can feel the extra heat radiating out of all the poorly sited, poorly built & poorly designed high density concrete monstrosities. That is an example of what densification looks like – or at least the ACT Gov’t version of it.

So, people joke about densification tongue in cheek. I for one haven’t yet had the frontal lobotomy necessary to accept the ACT Gov’t spin on all this.

But maybe I need to join the queue…….

Canberra’s population in 2000: 311,000 and in 2011: 356,000. That’s about 15% growth. Those people need to be housed somewhere. Now, in the light of that population growth I don’t follow the relevance of you argument at all. The problem is more and more people, and the ACT is not responsible for immigration. Or are you inferring that the population of Australia is steady and somehow that extra growth in local population has been drawn from elsewhere in Australia! (Australia’s total birth rate in 2014 was 1.80 babies per woman, while Canberra is 1.594. (Aust. Bureau of Statistics))

An international comparison:
Bangladesh’s population rose in 2015 1.20%. Canberra’s population growth from 2000 to 2011 averaged a yearly average of slightly more than that.

“Nor is there really a shortage of land.”
So true, what other use is there for those paddocks than putting housing on them. Food’s not a problem. Last time I checked there was plenty wrapped in plastic at the supermarket. And beside it’s on a little bit of farm land taken this year and the the next and the next and the next and the…only a little bit each year. Not a worry.

First they whinge about the price of land, then they whinge about the price of food.

They build a gross MacMansion, with double/triple garages, at the back of Whoop Whopp to park their gas guzzlers on and then complain about the mortgage, the cost of driving and “lack of roads”. A “lack” that has buried a quarter of our cities under concrete, and tar, and drowned out intelligent conversation on the subject.

Continuing the sarcasm, and then they blame pet cats for the lack of wildlife. Human expansion has nothing to do with it of course. It’s all the cats’ fault! Not the chopping down of trees and covering the bushland with concrete and MacMansions…no, no, no…DON’T be silly! Get real!

HenryBG 8:26 pm 21 Dec 15

rubaiyat said :

They build a gross MacMansion, with double/triple garages, at the back of Whoop Whopp to park their gas guzzlers on and then complain about the mortgage, the cost of driving and “lack of roads”. A “lack” that has buried a quarter of our cities under concrete, and tar, and drowned out intelligent conversation on the subject.

Opposition to medium- and high-density housing is the chief cause of concrete and tar being poured over our agricultural land.
…well, *that*, excessive immigration, and the baby bonus of course.

HenryBG 8:22 pm 21 Dec 15

gazket said :

you people never heard of a thermos . why do we need a millions $ worth of shop on mount Ainslie.

Gee, I don’t know, maybe for the same reason we moved out of caves and developed cake-making and brewing?

Mt Ainslie would look great lit up in neon, with pumping music, clubs & restaurants open at night. Totally awesome.

We have many, many hills we can leave alone – doing one up to be fun wouldn’t change that.

rubaiyat 5:59 pm 21 Dec 15

Maya123 said :

rommeldog56 said :

Maya123 said :

People make negative jokes about densification in housing, but while the population is allowed to grow at its runaway rate it will happen. Don’t blame the ACT government for that either; they are just responding to the population policies of the Federal Government, which has been the same under both Liberal and Labor governments. If you don’t like the way housing is going, campaign to slow/stop the population growth. Don’t go for the symptom; go for the route cause.

There isn’t some sort of “runaway population” growth in Canberra. Nor is there really a shortage of land. Your attempt to deflect the state of Canberra in relation to the incredibly poor ACT Gov’t planning and fiscal priority setting and their obvious weakness to pressure from developers and tram consortia, is shallow.

It’s not the Feds fault – in fact, the Feds saw the benefits cost ratio for the Canberra tram of 1:1.2 as being not worth investing in.

Instead, the tram is going ahead as a ppp as a vehicle to accelerate densification along its corridor.

Have you been to the cement jungle called the Molonglo Valley ?

You can feel the extra heat radiating out of all the poorly sited, poorly built & poorly designed high density concrete monstrosities. That is an example of what densification looks like – or at least the ACT Gov’t version of it.

So, people joke about densification tongue in cheek. I for one haven’t yet had the frontal lobotomy necessary to accept the ACT Gov’t spin on all this.

But maybe I need to join the queue…….

Canberra’s population in 2000: 311,000 and in 2011: 356,000. That’s about 15% growth. Those people need to be housed somewhere. Now, in the light of that population growth I don’t follow the relevance of you argument at all. The problem is more and more people, and the ACT is not responsible for immigration. Or are you inferring that the population of Australia is steady and somehow that extra growth in local population has been drawn from elsewhere in Australia! (Australia’s total birth rate in 2014 was 1.80 babies per woman, while Canberra is 1.594. (Aust. Bureau of Statistics))

An international comparison:
Bangladesh’s population rose in 2015 1.20%. Canberra’s population growth from 2000 to 2011 averaged a yearly average of slightly more than that.

“Nor is there really a shortage of land.”
So true, what other use is there for those paddocks than putting housing on them. Food’s not a problem. Last time I checked there was plenty wrapped in plastic at the supermarket. And beside it’s on a little bit of farm land taken this year and the the next and the next and the next and the…only a little bit each year. Not a worry.

First they whinge about the price of land, then they whinge about the price of food.

They build a gross MacMansion, with double/triple garages, at the back of Whoop Whopp to park their gas guzzlers on and then complain about the mortgage, the cost of driving and “lack of roads”. A “lack” that has buried a quarter of our cities under concrete, and tar, and drowned out intelligent conversation on the subject.

Maya123 5:17 pm 21 Dec 15

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate

This puts the Australian population growth rate into a world perspective. There are some countries I would consider ‘third world’ with a lower population growth rate than us.

Alexandra Craig 4:02 pm 21 Dec 15

Maya123 said :

rommeldog56 said :

Maya123 said :

People make negative jokes about densification in housing, but while the population is allowed to grow at its runaway rate it will happen. Don’t blame the ACT government for that either; they are just responding to the population policies of the Federal Government, which has been the same under both Liberal and Labor governments. If you don’t like the way housing is going, campaign to slow/stop the population growth. Don’t go for the symptom; go for the route cause.

There isn’t some sort of “runaway population” growth in Canberra. Nor is there really a shortage of land. Your attempt to deflect the state of Canberra in relation to the incredibly poor ACT Gov’t planning and fiscal priority setting and their obvious weakness to pressure from developers and tram consortia, is shallow.

It’s not the Feds fault – in fact, the Feds saw the benefits cost ratio for the Canberra tram of 1:1.2 as being not worth investing in.

Instead, the tram is going ahead as a ppp as a vehicle to accelerate densification along its corridor.

Have you been to the cement jungle called the Molonglo Valley ?

You can feel the extra heat radiating out of all the poorly sited, poorly built & poorly designed high density concrete monstrosities. That is an example of what densification looks like – or at least the ACT Gov’t version of it.

So, people joke about densification tongue in cheek. I for one haven’t yet had the frontal lobotomy necessary to accept the ACT Gov’t spin on all this.

But maybe I need to join the queue…….

Canberra’s population in 2000: 311,000 and in 2011: 356,000. That’s about 15% growth. Those people need to be housed somewhere. Now, in the light of that population growth I don’t follow the relevance of you argument at all. The problem is more and more people, and the ACT is not responsible for immigration. Or are you inferring that the population of Australia is steady and somehow that extra growth in local population has been drawn from elsewhere in Australia! (Australia’s total birth rate in 2014 was 1.80 babies per woman, while Canberra is 1.594. (Aust. Bureau of Statistics))

Andrew Barr tweeted the other day that the current estimated population is now about 390,000. So effectively Canberra’s population has increased by around the same amount in the last four years as it did for the 11 years prior to that. Wow.

Maya123 1:43 pm 21 Dec 15

rommeldog56 said :

Maya123 said :

People make negative jokes about densification in housing, but while the population is allowed to grow at its runaway rate it will happen. Don’t blame the ACT government for that either; they are just responding to the population policies of the Federal Government, which has been the same under both Liberal and Labor governments. If you don’t like the way housing is going, campaign to slow/stop the population growth. Don’t go for the symptom; go for the route cause.

There isn’t some sort of “runaway population” growth in Canberra. Nor is there really a shortage of land. Your attempt to deflect the state of Canberra in relation to the incredibly poor ACT Gov’t planning and fiscal priority setting and their obvious weakness to pressure from developers and tram consortia, is shallow.

It’s not the Feds fault – in fact, the Feds saw the benefits cost ratio for the Canberra tram of 1:1.2 as being not worth investing in.

Instead, the tram is going ahead as a ppp as a vehicle to accelerate densification along its corridor.

Have you been to the cement jungle called the Molonglo Valley ?

You can feel the extra heat radiating out of all the poorly sited, poorly built & poorly designed high density concrete monstrosities. That is an example of what densification looks like – or at least the ACT Gov’t version of it.

So, people joke about densification tongue in cheek. I for one haven’t yet had the frontal lobotomy necessary to accept the ACT Gov’t spin on all this.

But maybe I need to join the queue…….

Canberra’s population in 2000: 311,000 and in 2011: 356,000. That’s about 15% growth. Those people need to be housed somewhere. Now, in the light of that population growth I don’t follow the relevance of you argument at all. The problem is more and more people, and the ACT is not responsible for immigration. Or are you inferring that the population of Australia is steady and somehow that extra growth in local population has been drawn from elsewhere in Australia! (Australia’s total birth rate in 2014 was 1.80 babies per woman, while Canberra is 1.594. (Aust. Bureau of Statistics))

An international comparison:
Bangladesh’s population rose in 2015 1.20%. Canberra’s population growth from 2000 to 2011 averaged a yearly average of slightly more than that.

“Nor is there really a shortage of land.”
So true, what other use is there for those paddocks than putting housing on them. Food’s not a problem. Last time I checked there was plenty wrapped in plastic at the supermarket. And beside it’s on a little bit of farm land taken this year and the the next and the next and the next and the…only a little bit each year. Not a worry.

rommeldog56 8:12 pm 20 Dec 15

Maya123 said :

People make negative jokes about densification in housing, but while the population is allowed to grow at its runaway rate it will happen. Don’t blame the ACT government for that either; they are just responding to the population policies of the Federal Government, which has been the same under both Liberal and Labor governments. If you don’t like the way housing is going, campaign to slow/stop the population growth. Don’t go for the symptom; go for the route cause.

There isn’t some sort of “runaway population” growth in Canberra. Nor is there really a shortage of land. Your attempt to deflect the state of Canberra in relation to the incredibly poor ACT Gov’t planning and fiscal priority setting and their obvious weakness to pressure from developers and tram consortia, is shallow.

It’s not the Feds fault – in fact, the Feds saw the benefits cost ratio for the Canberra tram of 1:1.2 as being not worth investing in. Instead, the tram is going ahead as a ppp as a vehicle to accelerate densification along its corridor. Have you been to the cement jungle called the Molonglo Valley ? You can feel the extra heat radiating out of all the poorly sited, poorly built & poorly designed high density concrete monstrosities. That is an example of what densification looks like – or at least the ACT Gov’t version of it.

So, people joke about densification tongue in cheek. I for one haven’t yet had the frontal lobotomy necessary to accept the ACT Gov’t spin on all this. But maybe I need to join the queue…….

Maya123 8:01 pm 20 Dec 15

Maya123 said :

tooltime said :

I wouldn’t have a drama with the Brodberger caravan being resurrected up there – providing they also paid for a TAMS cleaner to pick up all the rubbish and install a few bins…

Unfortunately I don’t think this is what many would want for afternoon tea after a walk up the mountain. Okay for dinner, but would enough people be willing to make the detour at night to dry up Mt Ainslie to buy a hamburger?

That’s ‘drive up Mt Ainslie’

Maya123 5:12 pm 20 Dec 15

tooltime said :

I wouldn’t have a drama with the Brodberger caravan being resurrected up there – providing they also paid for a TAMS cleaner to pick up all the rubbish and install a few bins…

Unfortunately I don’t think this is what many would want for afternoon tea after a walk up the mountain. Okay for dinner, but would enough people be willing to make the detour at night to dry up Mt Ainslie to buy a hamburger?

Masquara 10:50 am 20 Dec 15

tooltime said :

I wouldn’t have a drama with the Brodberger caravan being resurrected up there – providing they also paid for a TAMS cleaner to pick up all the rubbish and install a few bins…

Anything low-key that is out of sight from anywhere on the Land Axis, and doesn’t have music playing, would be great. Unfortunately the plans will be much more high-end and intrusive …

switch 10:40 am 20 Dec 15

Maya123 said :

If you don’t like the way housing is going, campaign to slow/stop the population growth. Don’t go for the symptom; go for the route cause.

I think you mean “root cause!”

dungfungus 8:40 am 20 Dec 15

Maya123 said :

maxblues said :

Following the plans for Northbourne Ave…all the trees on Mount Ainslie should be cut down. This should cost millions of dollars which will require new blocks of units to be built on Mount Ainslie to pay for it. Simples

People make negative jokes about densification in housing, but while the population is allowed to grow at its runaway rate it will happen. Don’t blame the ACT government for that either; they are just responding to the population policies of the Federal Government, which has been the same under both Liberal and Labor governments. If you don’t like the way housing is going, campaign to slow/stop the population growth. Don’t go for the symptom; go for the route cause.

Some wisdom there Maya123.In fact, over-population is the root (I spell it differently to you) cause of most of the world’s problems.
The solution appears to be to ignore it as unbridled breeding is a cultural right for some.
The consequences are that global conflict is inevitable, preceded by famine.
It’s like the situation when Lake Eyre fills with water and fish and pelicans flourish only to die a lingering death when the water dries up.
That’s natures way.

tooltime 9:11 pm 19 Dec 15

I wouldn’t have a drama with the Brodberger caravan being resurrected up there – providing they also paid for a TAMS cleaner to pick up all the rubbish and install a few bins…

Maya123 12:54 pm 18 Dec 15

maxblues said :

Following the plans for Northbourne Ave…all the trees on Mount Ainslie should be cut down. This should cost millions of dollars which will require new blocks of units to be built on Mount Ainslie to pay for it. Simples

People make negative jokes about densification in housing, but while the population is allowed to grow at its runaway rate it will happen. Don’t blame the ACT government for that either; they are just responding to the population policies of the Federal Government, which has been the same under both Liberal and Labor governments. If you don’t like the way housing is going, campaign to slow/stop the population growth. Don’t go for the symptom; go for the route cause.

maxblues 12:12 pm 18 Dec 15

Following the plans for Northbourne Ave…all the trees on Mount Ainslie should be cut down. This should cost millions of dollars which will require new blocks of units to be built on Mount Ainslie to pay for it. Simples

Nilrem 9:44 am 18 Dec 15

GardeningGirl said :

With something already on Red Hill and on Black Mountain is there really demand for something on Mount Ainslie too? Speaking of Black Mountain, maybe fix that first?

+1. Black Mountain is a very ordinary lookout, unless you want to pay for the tower.

gazket 8:47 pm 17 Dec 15

you people never heard of a thermos . why do we need a millions $ worth of shop on mount Ainslie.

“Minister Rattenbury did say “I don’t think anyone in Canberra would want to see anything gaudy on this landscape”

They said that about the lake once too and look what popped up there, a $1 million eyesore .Paid by the tax payer of course.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site