BACKYARDS AND URBAN SPRAWL
The Age
Tuesday November 24, 2009
PAUL Mees (Comment, 23/11) provides logical thinking about Melbourne residential densities, transport systems and trees. Single-dwelling lots take far too much blame for our transport congestion and overpopulation problems, when they actually offer many positives socially, health-wise and environmentally.With the past 15-plus years of increased dual-occupancy and multi-unit development of former single-dwelling lots, we have witnessed a substantial loss of large trees (up to 50 per cent in places) throughout the metropolitan area. This is leading to increased urban heat island effects and severe strains on stormwater systems and electricity demand for summer air-conditioners. We need to retain our trees and gardens (with real trees €” not urban-designer toy specimens) and sanity while creating more job opportunities near our regional activity centres to reduce demand for freeways and public transport.We might also learn to grow our own fruit and vegetables again, avoiding the greenhouse emissions and higher prices associated with buying them in supermarkets. Otherwise, "the garden state" will become "just another hot, crowded, concrete jungle".Dennis Williamson, Glen WaverleyThree cheers for MeesSUBURBAN garden lovers and supporters of the big backyard €” that Australian institution €” will cheer when they read Dr Paul Mees' article.Dr Mees, Melbourne's transport guru, turns the tables on those muddle-headed urban planners who wrongly blame our gardens and backyards for low suburban density, which is in turn blamed for poor public transport and overuse of cars.He says that, rather, Government should tackle our dysfunctional privatised public transport.Our great-grandparents, who left overcrowded tenements in Britain and Europe for a new life in Australia, would never have dreamt that the Government would try to get us to abandon our suburban gardens and force us into high-rise units on tram lines or next to train tracks.Elizabeth Jackson, FitzroyPower to the pedalsPAUL Mees tells us that the idea that Melbourne has low-density urban sprawl is a delusion, because the old Melbourne Statistical Division data included national parks and farmland. The actual urban density was first estimated in 1974, by this writer, by simply subtracting map grid squares for national parks and farmland as shown in the Melway directory, after marking the Australian Bureau of Statistics boundary areas. It was a tedious task that Melbourne's planners have not done.Paul Mees has now provided us with accurate ABS data and tells us that Melbourne is a medium-density city. In such cities, access to stations can be greatly increased by encouraging cycling. Riding a bicycle uses the "mechanical advantage" of pedalling over walking to go at least 3 times as far for the same physical effort. Cycling, rather than walking, increases the number of homes with access to stations by about a factor of 10.This already exists in Dutch, Danish and Swedish cities, where far more bicycles are stored at local stations and bicycle theft is not the serious problem it is here. Cycling also makes cross-suburban travel much easier in outer urban areas.Alan Parker, Sorrento
© 2009 The Age