david wrote:Well I have obviously hit a nerve here.
Certainly not anti-development but anti over-development. A more consistent height of 5 or 6 storeys is what we are talking about rather than 10-12 storey sore thumbs such as the old Queen Vic. (Central Park notwithstanding!)
There was a concerted campaign some years ago to establish a Hills Face Zone which was to be devoid of buildings and that has been largely successful in preserving the Hills as seen from the plains, which many people think was worthwhile.
As for under-utilised Park Lands - this is another bone of contention. When you take into account all the numerous sporting activities that are located in the parks including the large areas taken over by private, profitable groups like of PAC, CBC and Pulteney, there isn't much left for just passive use, a place to escape, a place to get away from the sights and sounds of urban spaces. Th
This is what Light built into his city plan and what we need to preserve. Please, just let us have some plain open space with some longer vistas and yes, a view to the Hills!
David
The Hills Face Zone effort was indeed worth the fight. Imagine if not done - not only because it prevented excessive housing development, but also prevented a few open cut quarries (scars) being visually inflicted on us all for the long term. I don't think this effort is widely known about or appreciated. Names of those involved should be written into folklore
Maybe i'm in the minority of this forum, but i like & appreciate distant hills views from within the CBD, and want to retain. I find my eye often being drawn from the nearby CBD amenity to the distant hills - it just seems to work. The practical reality however, is parkland trees block most of this view, unless you're in a tall building, or at ground level gazing eastward up a CBD road, or standing in a few small pockets of the east parklands where tree plantings are more sparse (counter intuitively including the clipsal track area of vic park). It's worth noting that Victoria Park itself has many new juvenile trees, with still more to come, that will over time further block the hills views. In another thread many moons ago i talked about the need for creating 'distant lines of sight' across & through the parklands via a planned approach to plantings - rather than what
appears to be a random 'oooh look - there's a gap, better jam in another tree' approach - but that's an aside.
Personally I could accept lower height on the fullarton/greenhill side of the parklands if it encouraged developers to buy up and build more height in the city. It's about driving & rewarding behavior that creates the ends we want, rather than imposing rules that appear as being backward - a subtle but important difference. Building higher in the square mile is more important in my mind than the surrounding suburbs. Further, increased height in the city won't block much in the way of existing views (as most views are up city & cross-parkland roads), and will instead offer remarkable views for new city residents fortunate enough to live 'en haut' in a city tower.
Lastly, passive parklands as a place to escape, a place to get away from the sights and sounds of urban spaces, is definitely worthwhile. It's evident many areas of the parklands are regularly used, much more than commonly perceived, but i would question whether the 'get away from it all' parts are used as much as we desire - personally I stay away from such areas - they scare me due to their lack of human amenity. This neatly ties back to my previous post
here.