|
|
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| 31 |
SYDNEY - Sydney residents are familiar with poor planning and development which is translating into more and more people being crammed into less space. Local government continues to cave in to the developers despite the cries for the preservation of open space and proper planning. There is an acute shortage of dwellings and pent up demand is providing developers with the leverage to lay claim to what could have been, and probably should have been, open space.
Sydney has lost considerable amounts of open space over the past 25 years. If the figures I have been given are reliable, the commonly accepted benchmark is 24 square metres of open space per resident. Sydney has 23.6 square metres per resident, ahead of New York's 18 square metres per resident, but behind San Francisco (31 square metres per resident) and Melbourne which has 73.8 square metres per resident.
Local councils make motherhood statements about improving facilities while talking in terms of increasing demand, over-use of existing facilities and shrinking amounts of open space (which they seem incapable of connecting to the Development Applications they approve). Sporting groups are screaming for more facilities, those who prefer to engage in passive recreation activities are lamenting that they are being deprived of access so that the needs of organised sport can be met and dog owners see themselves as marginalised. Rate payers are angry that they continue to foot the bill while their local council ignores them.
The brouhaha over use of space in several LGAs is not dying down. It appears to be a case of passive recreation versus organised sport versus dog owners who can't see why Rover should be kept on a leash; and these groups do not appear to be willing to share space. There appears to be a substantial commitment to organised sport by local councils; a facile response to the figures on childhood obesity and pressure from sporting clubs. Sporting bodies have clout (mostly in the form of Alan Jones and other shock jocks). True, the statistics point to a substantial increase in participation in organised sports, however the lack of training space has been played out in the media as a 'where will the children play?' quandary. Little thought appears to have been given to children who don't or don't want to play organised sport. What happens to the kids who just want to ‘play'?
A number of councils are commissioning recreation studies however a recreation study of a single LGA will not magically provide an accurate picture. Council boundaries are not impermeable, people travel out of their local government area to shop, work, study, play sport, walk along a beach etc.
How should the matter of who gets to use Sydney's open spaces and for what purposes be resolved? Should one group be prioritised over another? Do these spaces belong to any one group and who decides and how? Do we need a comprehensive plan to manage resources across council boundary lines or are our lives over-regulated as it is? Or is it that someone needs to step in to teach the people of Sydney to how to play together nicely?
Printer friendly version
Comments
Open spaces open for regulation
Malevolent Miss,
23.6 square meters per resident is still a lot of open space per resident compared to European or Asian standards. One of the key aspects of Australian life that keeps attracting people to our shores is precisely its big, open spaces, the lack of which often makes experiencing some European city-experiences as claustrophobic.
The ability of local councils to regulate the use of open spaces, however, is a bit of an issue, if we assume that a lot of these decisions are based on intense lobby-ing by various stakeholders with money to throw around.
On a separate note, although not a dog owner myself, I do find it difficult to understand the number of rules and regulations pet owners have to contend with in their daily activities that seem to take view that pets are a slight nuisance to the community and stepping into their poo in the park is a terrible offence and incovenience to the human race.
Australian parks in general allow for a lot of outdoor activities, etc, but I do believe that some things should be left to common sense (and a sense of curtesy), and not completly remove the ability of human beings to be spontaneous (while exercising their ability to be responsible at the same time).
We are currently subjected to so many rules and regulations impacting our individual behaviour that the only conclusion I can make is that those who govern don't have much trust in the society's ability to behave responsibly. It is, to an extent, a bit of a trend that you could call 'the infantalisation of the rate payer'. Then again ...
Supply and demand
So you're simultaneously complaining that Sydney residents are being "crammed into less space" and that there's already too much development AND you're complaining about rents going up, pent up demand and a shortage of housing? ? If you don't want building on open spaces then incoming people will be 'crammed together' in the existing space. If you block development then this shortage of supply will increase rents. It's called supply and demand. If you complain both about an 'acute shortage' of dwellings and yet oppose the building of new ones then what exactly is your solution?
Life is about choices, if you want open spaces and large dwellings then fine, if you want lower rents and more housing and more development then fine. You simply can't have them both. It's not logically possible.
Similarly there is a conflict between the interests of sportsmen - who want dog poo free fields - and dog walkers who want to let fido roam free. There have to be compromises, but everybody can't have their own way. This is simply the human condition. As for arguing that playing fields somehow discriminate against children who don't like playing organised sports - where exactly do you think they're going to fly their kites, ride their bikes or whatever else they want to do? Playing fields are used for organised sports for a fraction of the week, the rest of the time they are free for anyone.
Nobody needs to 'step in' to teach the people of Sydney anything. They're individuals just as intelligent as anyone else who don't need to be bossed about by people who pretend to know better. Are our lives over regulated as it is? YES. The last thing a free space open to all needs is three hundred more regulations.