A reply to Dr Murfet

Thank you for your vote of confidence Bob Murfet (In comments on, Is open space dispensable?. I cannot answer for the other two people who contributed to the article but I can answer for myself.

Densification and the amount of public open space in a city are generally not related.

Densification and the amount of green living open space to me, are intimately related, whether the space (and place) occurs in a city, in a suburb, in an historic town and whether it is public or private green space. Green living open space is a vital part of the character of place, contributing to that character. Such a discussion goes to the heart of the balance between our built form (which includes hard open space areas) and living open green space. Does it bring us together socially as a meeting, gathering place, or is it an unused, windy, shaded area? Does it add aesthetically to our environment providing amenity or does it fail in this respect? [See Christopher Alexander et al. A Pattern Language]. I could continue.

The amount of private open space people need is another matter and requirements are usually built into planning schemes. However, most people do not want a quarter acre lot to maintain. It is a dumb idea to say everybody should have one just in case they want to grow vegetables. Look over some back fences and see how many people grow the vegetables they need.

There are – in my opinion – a number of value judgements made here with words put into my mouth. I can’t see that I said that we needed a quarter acre lot, nor that everyone should have one, or even an 800m2 lot, and I can’t see that I wrote that I supported the continuation of urban sprawl in cities. What is needed is balance, what is required is imagination to see how best that balance might be achieved. What is required is NOT one pattern of development as appears to be the current case in Tasmania. Surely we are more innovative than one simplistic ‘anywhere’ model for medium densities and “infill.” Surely “models” are possible that might accommodate many different types of urban density, models where the public might and should become involved in the planning process.

If you believe that “most people” do not want soft green space, please provide some references for such a broad assertion, so those of us who do value green space, (especially in multi unit development) can look them up. It’s going to be a dumber idea into the future when we find we have large urban concretised landscapes in a world chronically short of cheap oil, and what follows.

Yes, Bob private open space is “built into planning schemes.” We could examine some of the standards very carefully, then even more carefully witness its reality. Is that “open space” (multi unit development) really adequate for any use other than storing the garbage bin? I can point to endless developments, (especially in the last few years) where ‘open space provision’ is simply what is ‘left over’ on the plan after the developers have crammed as many multi unit buildings into the set land parcel as can be crammed. Green “soft space” or deep soil zones (now designated and mandated in some NSW local government planning schemes) can be a space used for vegetables or any other practical useable, social use; this is not the case in this state.

Unfortunately the people putting forward the opinions in this material are not specialist planners. Heritage consultants generally prefer that nothing changes.

For the record I’ve been a corporate member of the Planning Institute of Australia for decades, and many of the senior planning bureaucracy in Tasmania know of my work. In the long past I’ve worked as a coal face planner on development applications (local government)l, appeared at RMPAT appeals, before the RPDC, TPC, countless times etc. Have you? I’ve worked for a much of my working life in research, and hold a post graduate research honours degree in open space planning, heritage and landscape. I’ve appeared as a speaker at international conferences (planning history, forestry) national conferences (PIA, garden history), appeared at numerous times elsewhere, had several articles published in Australian Planner as well as articles and papers published elsewhere. I guess in your eyes I’m still not a “specialist” planner? I might well have been teaching university students about land use (with an appropriate educational qualification) at Sydney University when you were still a boy in short pants.

In my view it is not useful or productive to make the broad generalisations such as those in the comments (i.e. Heritage consultants generally prefer that nothing changes). It isn’t constructive and doesn’t help take the issue forward. It simply attacks the messenger. My work is meticulously footnoted, enabling people to check the veracity of my arguments. Your work is not and the broad generalisations are not substantiated (e.g. However, most people do not want a quarter acre lot to maintain). You might remember I asked for answers to one of your earlier posts. I am still waiting for those answers. It would be useful if not honest to place your cards on the table and tell TT readers whom you work for, a pointer surely to why you take the particular planning viewpoints that you express to the TT readership. Let’s bring it all out into the open and make it a level playing field. What we need in Tasmania is transparency and much more integrity, and that means in the planning arena as well. And do let’s stop the superiority that – as a ‘specialist’ planner – you know best what is best for all of us. This is surely an example of paternalism in the twenty first century at its worst.