Our local council now has a forum for your input about Armidale’s direction over the next 20 years:
Here’s a post I put up today:
Thanks for the opportunity to comment. It’s great that public art is included in the mix; hopefully we can reach the high standards in places like Walcha, where their numerous sculptures are a tourist attraction. Some art and more (native) trees along one of our main streets – Marsh Street – would add to the town’s aesthetics – the stretch from the Wicklow up to the lights is pretty drab. Some councils are a lot more dedicated to native vegetation (such as Willoughby Council), resulting in pleasant shady streets with plenty of bird life.
I want to question some fundamental assumptions in the blurb above, which promotes growth as though it’s inevitable, as does the Mayor’s statement this week that Armidale will be much larger in the future. Why? Who has decided this? Isn’t this something to be decided in a consultative process?
While there are obviously some people who love growth (eg developers, real estate people, some business people) there are many others who like the current size of Armidale. People who don’t want to live in unfriendly frantic big cities prefer Armidale precisely because it is not too big. There is not too much traffic, and most people know others in multiple ways – work, sport, culture etc. Has anyone asked the people of Armidale what size city they want? Has anyone done studies to determine at what population point a town changes its character? Does growth enhance or detract from quality of life, as suburbia takes over from paddocks and bushland?
Globally, we are seeing that economics based on growth is being increasingly challenged. For a start, infinite growth is not possible on a finite planet, so it’s an unsustainable premise. Have those who are keen on growth here determined what Armidale will look like when peak oil and global warming mitigation and adaption change how we transport ourselves and our goods? is it fair that we continue to grow while others are told to curb their populations? What are the environmental ramifications of a larger city, or of encroachment onto farmland, or all the resources that go into new developments, and all the native vegetation and habitat that is cleared for new developments? Couldn’t we lead the world by aiming for a stable population (which is easier to plan for) which has sustainable industries which employ plenty of people in worthwhile work? Relying on growth to create employment doesn’t necessarily work as it means there are more people who need work, so it’s a never-ending cycle.
World leaders such as Barak Obama are saying that climate change is the most serious problem currently threatening humanity and the planet, so I would suggest that we take these issues seriously in designing Armidale’s future, rather than assuming that growth is inevitable, beneficial and necessary. I think we also need to support the good initiatives going on – the creek plantings, farmers’ markets, community garden, the many people who are retrofitting or installing solar panels or building in an eco-friendly, community-minded aesthetic way, as opposed to ugly large-scale unsustainable developments planned under 20th century thinking.
By: Marty Branagan
Calendar subscribe
