‘would contribute to the gentrification of [Newtown]’
-
It’s bad planning and the Council was right to have refused permission. But lol arguing against gentrification in Newtown is about two and a half decades too late
-
@liamvhogan “There’s this really big push to get Sydney more vibrant, and I’m absolutely for that. But…”
There are some very good quotes in here.
-
Before anyone asks.
Uses of space for commercial [or any other] use really need to be based on the rules of who owns it and what’s permissible there, which in turn is based on what kind of land it actually is. Planning is an exercise in managing conflict and future consequences.
In the case of footpath dining, the worst thing that can happen is pedestrian blocking, or bad behaviour on the part of drinkers, both of which you can regulate under the terms of a licence. (And the Police do do this, very strictly). Building a deck, by contrast, tends to actually change the size of the lot, because it precludes other land uses even when it’s not operating as a business. Which is cheeky, and the Council was right to have said no. If you want the exclusive use of land, buy it.
-
There’s absolutely nothing wrong in principle with commercial uses for public parkland. If you want to get married in the Botanic Gardens, sure, pay a fee, say your vows, congratulations. But that’s not a land use change and it imposes barely at all on future other uses.
-
Thermite Be Giantsreplied to Liam :fnord: last edited by
@liamvhogan I’m breaking out my “Form Based Code” brass knuckle dusters
-
Liam :fnord:replied to Thermite Be Giants last edited by
@ThermiteBeGiants ‘form is temporary, NBC Building Class, permanent’
-
@liamvhogan Unsurprisingly facile take from Koziol on this. But, on the bright side, the article introduced me to a wonderful phrase, "vibrancy reform".
-
@liamvhogan how the Council agreed to this semi-permanent appropriation of the park doesn't surprise me when you look at the deal these clowns made with Newington for the renovation of Tempe Reserve playing fields
-
@franksting apparently they didn’t, and lost in court. Which I have my own other opinions about
-
Thinking further about this. Real micro-level fights about planning, at the level of one specific thirty metre square deck in a dirt corner of a park, are often very revealing about the nature of planning.
A lot of the time, paradoxically, to get a genuinely fair result, someone has to lose out, or be told ‘no’, especially if they’ve been a windfall beneficiary in the past. All the ‘consultation’ in the world doesn’t change the fact that conflicts between interests are real. Searching for solutions where nobody has to suffer loss is often a way for existing beneficiaries to reinforce structural power.
I’m just going to leave that thought in the macro level context of housing.
-
@liamvhogan MORE LATER
-
@liamvhogan but I *want* to be a slumlord who crams 15 people into a 3 bedroom house that is condemned.
The government is infringing on my robber baron private interests!