Self-selected agents of outrage doing the business on a facebook emote

30january1649 said :

So all we need is a mechanism to force businesses to stay viable…Da Comrade!…The Russians kinda made it work…between 1922 and 1991 – but gee a lot of people got shot or starved.

If a business is not viable it should go broke, then the land would become available to another business. The land should *NOT* be rezoned. The owner should have to sell it based on it being used for some community benefiting purpose.

At the very least, if no one can make a go at it, the government should buy it back at it’s community/recreational use value, then they could reap the financial gain of a rezoning.

Ryoma, so of your points are valid but I ask this, why must Canberra change for young people?

I moved here at the age of 20 (now 39) & I have loved it. Canberra had good nightlife then & I have made the best of what the place has to offer, cyling, fishing, 4wd’ing, motorcycling, camping, snow, close to the coast & now a career in the Aust Government. We live in an outdoors playground with pretty good employment prospects.

We have a few guys here at work who hate the place, all middle aged, they have only been here a bit over 5 years & come from larger cities (2 from Melbourne). My god do they go on about how stale the place is & how boring, nothing to do, the public service is crap blah, blah.

CANBERRA IS WHAT YOU MAKE IT & why does it have to be the same as Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane ect. Isnt that a tad boring??

As stated in other threads the building industry has a hold on the Government with regards to planning & they are getting rich from it.

With regards to public transport, Action buses do a pretty good job considering the distances that they have to travel (I personally travel 30km) & the local shopping centre is only 2km walk from my home. This should be no problem for any able bodied “young” person.

I personally like the planning in Canberra, I have mixed emotions of urban infill as it goes against the original plan of the city, we need medium density housing & its a shame that the inner suburbs ar succumbing to it.

I am often amazed at the piss poor planning of other cities where schools are next to industial areas that are next to residential areas in the same suburb.

Give me leafy Canberra anyday.

So all we need is a mechanism to force businesses to stay viable…Da Comrade!…The Russians kinda made it work…between 1922 and 1991 – but gee a lot of people got shot or starved.

Sepi says: “We have lost the drive-in, the mini-golf, canberry fair, clancies tavern, and now the observatory. All for units.”

Drive in – privately owned…unviable
Mini-golf – privately owned…unviable
Canberry Fair – privately owned…unviable
Clancy’s Tavern – privately owned…unviable
the observatory – privately owned…unviable

Do we really want a city of rusting hulks?

I think many people believe they will lose money/value from their property due to infilling – their house is now worth less (because who wants to live in a house surrounded by apartments or townhouses) and they dont get any benefit from these changes, only the downside (loss of money plus loss of amenity etc). You might say ‘but their land value is increased’, but that is of little use if you have a $500k house built on the land, which is now worth much less than the land value increase (because no one wants to live there) and if you dont want to (or cant afford to) become a property developer yourself.

The second issue is people having moved into areas that have now been re-zoned worrying about moving again (to ‘escape’ the higher density) but now believing there is a risk that their new house will again be re-zoned. Just ask all those people who live near shopping centres discovering they can now have 8+ townhouses built on what used to be a single block, fearing that the ‘medium density’ zone will be changed again, maybe to 400m from the shops or along ‘major’ roads or whatever the government decides in 5 years time.

So money and uncertainty.

Not sure how to deal with it. I can think of some ‘money’ solutions eg revalue the land upwards by quite a lot, but say that the rates remain low while it is a single dwelling/not changed from current dwelling. Not that this encourages infilling, it just gives some benefit to people affected by zoning changes.

Interesting points Ryoma. But for mine, wall to wall apartments does not make for a vibrant place that young trendies would love.

Demolishing all former ‘entertainment’ precincts in the dickson area and building units all over them does not make for vibrant city living. We have lost the drive-in, the mini-golf, canberry fair, clancies tavern, and now the observatory. All for units.

Even if those venues had had their day, the land should have been retained for community purposes, not walled off for more and more units.

Storm in a teacup. I call troll.

John Moulis said :

I have to wonder what magical property you need to have in order to be anointed as one of his FB friends.

I think you have to be an actual friend or someone he accepted before setting up his official Andrew Barr FB page. He posted about this back when he first set up his page.

Ryoma said :

If we want to attract young people to our service industries (and in general), we have to offer them lifestyle and housing options they can afford, and want to stay here for.
The alternative is turning Canberra into a museum where young people leave, and businesses and society as a whole, suffer.

Utter nonsense. So the only alternative to “attracting young people” is “turning into a museum”? Sophomoric tripe; it paints the world in black and white. There are more alternatives than the two you offer; one where we “suffer” and one where we “attract young people”. What a load of cobblers.

Canberra survived for 80 years without losing its character as the Bush Capital. Only recently have we suffered this curse of suburban in-filling, high-density housing, high-density apartments, and ridiculously over-engineered roads (e.g. multi-lane monster highways, spaghetti junctions, and intersections large enough to land aeroplanes). It’s all the trappings of Sydney and Melbourne being forced onto Canberra.

For 80 years businesses didn’t “suffer” and young people didn’t “leave”. That was at least 3 generations of families. So how exactly does your hypothesis stand even the most casual scrutiny? What makes this generation so damn special that we are at a “crossroads”?

I think it’s no surprise that the wholesale destruction of Canberra occurred at roughly the same time that Local Government was forced upon us. Local governments make money from rates and taxes, which are increased with population and higher density, and politicians measure success by the size of their portfolios. Land developers don’t give a shit if they destroy the city so long as they make fistfuls of money, and politicians are all too eager to facilitate them.

Don’t get me started on the travesty that is Gungahlin.

Ryomas post is very well argued. The future of Canberra is increased density, but therein lies the dilemma – increased density but none of the increased facilities or infrastructure this density requires. We see in Molonglo planning a repetition of Gungahlin under-investment in appropriate roads and public transport. Inner Canberra is also groaning at the seams under this requirement to drive everywhere.

The answers are:
1 sound long term planning
2 open transparent planning objectives that all residents can see
3 transit oriented development
4 light rail linking population and employment centres

The Traineediplomat said :

#10 Roma,

I think this is the best, most well balanced post I’ve ever read here. Kudos to you, +1 and other internet forum plaudits.

Seconded. Well said, Ryoma.

#10 Roma,

I think this is the best, most well balanced post I’ve ever read here. Kudos to you, +1 and other internet forum plaudits.

While I’m not pleased at a Minister who is silly enough to put his private opinions up on a social media website, I can understand his frustration. I imagine Mr. Barr is feeling the heat from both sides on many of these issues, and naturally every decision made is going to have people who don’t like it.

I think that essentially there is a clash between 2 groups of people who value different things, and stemming from this, want a different Canberra.

One one side, the various residents groups are often made of people who have lived in their suburbs and houses long-term. They have worked hard to establish gardens, and perhaps lobbied and worked to get local infrastructure built. As a result of their hard work (along with many other people in both public and private sectors), much of Canberra is an attractive place to live.

Understandably, they value the look and feel of the communities that have developed organically over time as a result of these decisions, and feel compelled to defend the investment they have made in time and effort towards these places.

On the flip side is the large number of people who arrive in Canberra annually, attracted by the job opportunities, the strong economy, and the lifestyle offered. Among these are something in the order of 1000 public sector graduates, and similar (larger?) numbers of Defence staff and tertiary students.

This second group is diverse, but are often (not always) young, and from larger cities. While they appreciate the natural beauty of Canberra, they are frustrated at the need to drive everywhere, and the lack of urban culture across much of the city. Because of their exposure to higher density living elsewhere, they don’t regard it with horror, but as a way of life that offers benefits as well as costs. They would like to have housing choices which reflect this, which are within walking distance of services, and with some feeling of “action”.

And herein lies the rub. The Government is trying to encourage infill development and higher density without having a clear aim of where and how it wants to achieve a balance between these 2 different Canberras. One side is made up of many wealthy older Canberrans who live in the same areas most suited to infill, and one which is politically savvy and united.

On the other hand is a largely transient workforce (again, not all) who often leave Canberra because they get fed up with waiting for their type of city lifestyle to appear here (among other reasons). Many of this group are frustrated by the status quo, but beyond complaining to each other, are not united, and so remain largely silent.

But the ACT Government realises how important much of this workforce is, which is part of why there is a “Live in Canberra” campaign. These transient workers and students provide Canberra with many of the staff to our service industries: from hospitality, the casino, hotel staff, office cleaners,aged care workers, retail…the list goes on. Given that such people often do not want to live out in the sticks, and definitely not to buy out there (in large part because even new housing estates are beyond their financial reach), they need to be accomodated somewhere.

So the city is at a crossroads. In the next few years, many Baby Boomers will retire, requiring more people to fill their vacant jobs. At present we already have skills shortages in some fields, and part of this is due to people not feeling the daily commute is worth getting poorly paid for. Our public transport is struggling, with the argument being that our population is not high enough to support it (despite Edinburgh, with 400,000 people, not much bigger, bringing back trams and light rail).

We need, as a city, to have this conversation. Canberra cannot remain the bush capital in all suburbs – some places are going to have to get much higher density to take the pressure off our remaining green spaces and leafy streets. This does mean that the city’s character will change, with both positive and negative effects flowing from that (and such effects being viewed subjectively, depending upon one’s point of view).

If we want to attract young people to our service industries (and in general), we have to offer them lifestyle and housing options they can afford, and want to stay here for.
The alternative is turning Canberra into a museum where young people leave, and businesses and society as a whole, suffer. Not to mention that everyday life will get harder without them – how many APS5’s or above would want to work in (for example) aged care, no matter what it paid?

To what extent do we sacrifice the future to satisfy the present, or vice-versa?

Nice Title 😀

bd84 said :

I’m outraged at a half wit by the name of Andrew Barr continually misusing his power to approve developments without addressing legitimate concerns of the public. Take a look at the ANU project that he approved ignoring community groups and the major traffic and parking issues. While I understand the need to ignore some peoples continued baseless objections, he seems to use the powers with no rhyme or reason. By the way I’m still waiting for the official response from ACTPLA, but I guess they’re not allowed to write “the minister is a moron” in an email.

Was that ANU project approved by Barr or Corbell? Of course it was approved – it improved the value of nearby property owned by the Labor Club!

“This town desperately needs more dwellings. “

No it doesn’t. It needs fewer people. There are too many people, too many roads, and too much sprawl.

The people who want inner-city living can fark off back to Sydney and Melbourne.

I’m outraged at a half wit by the name of Andrew Barr continually misusing his power to approve developments without addressing legitimate concerns of the public. Take a look at the ANU project that he approved ignoring community groups and the major traffic and parking issues. While I understand the need to ignore some peoples continued baseless objections, he seems to use the powers with no rhyme or reason. By the way I’m still waiting for the official response from ACTPLA, but I guess they’re not allowed to write “the minister is a moron” in an email.

On the planning issue – Strangely enough I know of four separate families (with 2 or more children) who live in Kingston and Braddon, in appartments / townhouses. Whereas my fiance and I have to live in a house because we have a 13year old dog, and no children.

Canberra needs to wipe their planning slate clean and start again.

Yes we do need more dwellings – of all sizes and shapes and prices – and in ALL areas!

I sure am glad the Canberra Times doesn’t report every halfwit drunken rant I post on Facebook.

John Moulis said :

Barr’s musings on Facebook are starting to make him look foolish.

He doesnt need to be on FB to look foolish, a few years ago when the Rally of Canberra was in financial trouble & were looking to the ACT Government for help he slammed them but a few days later he was handing out money hand & foot to the AFL to host games here without even a thought that the ROC also brings money into the ACT community.

He lost all credibility for me that day.

I’m generation X/Y, have no children AND I actually want a yard. He can’t speak for me.

On the other hand, the ACT Government believes we need urban infill. Call a spade a spade; don’t attack the existing community.

Barr’s musings on Facebook are starting to make him look foolish. This is the second time the CT has printed an uncomplimentary article about his postings. And what was that bizarre follow-up post consisting of the long word from Mary Poppins supposed to mean? I have to wonder what magical property you need to have in order to be anointed as one of his FB friends. I’ve applied twice and been knocked back both times. Simon Corbell and Mark Parton approved me straight away.