Why city policy to 'protect the Brisbane backyard' is failing
theconversation.com/why-city-policy-to-protec...
theconversation.comPosted Dec 9, 2020, 11:19 PM UTC
819
theconversation.comIt is beyond me why so many people think it is important we preserve a neighbourhoods worth of character. Sure, keep a church or a community icon up. But we are holding back entire suburbs in the name of nostalgia. Will we deny tens of thousands of young people the housing they need to live, in the name of nostalgia? Can an immigrant house their family under our nostalgia for decades past?
We can cling to the past of large queenslanders with big back gardens. Or we can change, and realise some sort of growth and progress by encouraging people to live in our city. Embracing medium density allows people to live affordably while having superior access to the things they need to survive and prosper.
3
So they want to density while projecting existing structures and are surprised that people are using their backyards to do that? I'm shocked there was an article to say this.
1
The issue is the lack of medium density to act as a transition between low rise and high rise. I don't understand why they think backyards should be protected greenspace, though. Densifying urban areas will protect greenspace on the edge of the city which likely has more biodiversity.
1
Given the cost of providing greenspace (the impact on density, and thus affordability of land and transport), we need to be sure we're getting the best bang for our buck out of our greenspace that we do have.
Wildlife biodiversity is just one potential benefit of greenspace. Others are space for recreation, reduction in the urban heat island effect, improved rainwater permeability, facilitating cooling breezes in this subtropical environment, etc etc.
I agree that backyards are not the best use of greenspace. They only provide a handful of these benefits, but we could be building public parks in urban areas that provides all of these benefits.
I'm a big defender of incremental, market-based solutions to infill development, but I'm not sure how the provision of publicly accessible quality greenspace can be done in that way. I'd be interested in reading further about this.
2
I agree about parks, just neglected to say it. I just feel like people often imply all greenspace is good. Location, quality, and use are important. There's lots of big grassy areas in the US that no one uses. I guess they are permeable at least, but if they are inhibiting density, that's an environmental minus not a plus.
1
It seems the problem is policies that require densification to work, while also trying to preserve existing single family neighborhood “character.”
From the report: “The Character Residential (Infill) zone allows for higher density, but houses built prior to 1946 must be retained. Any new dwellings must be of a similar scale.”
Yes, the problem is that the policies here have three aims: increase density, preserve character and preserve the current level of green space. But only the first two aims are actually enshrined in policy.
If we were willing to give up a bit of character (perhaps by allowing some older buildings to be demolished, as long as the newer buildings have a similar form), we would be able to build some medium-density housing that is in keeping with the character.
The state government, at least, has been doing some initiatives in this respect, such as a Density Diversity Done Well Competition.
[deleted]
If you're going to have strict oversight over what is built, it would make more sense to have strict policies about building materials, architectural style and building form than it would to have strict prohibitions on removing existing structures. I have the utmost confidence that architects and builders today could build houses that are just as good, if not better, than those their grandparents did before the 50s.
Yes, you’re right.