Unfortunately, across the country, there's been very little effort or intent at all to phase out car dependency. Having now lived in a few states/territories, the theme remains the same. There's some investment in rail/light rail, but ONLY when car dependency had became so chronic that they 'need' something to ease the congestion, rather than building frameworks for cities that leave car ownership as an option not a requirement or comfortable living. I found myself leaving the architecture industry entirely because I was just sick to death with it. Zoning and planning laws basically make it illegal to design cities without car dependency. The kinds of projects I initially wanted to be getting into just turned out to be unreachable pipedreams because of car-centric laws. Granted, they are far less severe than in countries like the USA, but the kinds of historic, walkable, inner suburbs that people pay absurd figures to live in are basically limited stock because they are illegal to build now, yet its these suburbs that best meet sustainability and liveability objectives. Not a single city in this country has shown any changes to planning laws to facilitate this kind of development so everything is either car-centric suburban sprawl where you can't do ANYTHING without using the car, or they're all just apartment towers. The situation is especially prevalent in smaller cities. Tasmania for example has 4 'cities' ranging from 20,000 - 250,000 people each. Of these, Hobart and Launceston both had public rail services and extensive tram networks and subsequently had their own 'streetcar suburbs', but mid 20th century, these were all destroyed and cars took over. Now your options for living are either "be rich enough to live in one of the walkable inner suburbs" or you buy a car. If you can't get a car and still have to live in car-suburbia hell, then there are bus services but these almost seem to punish you for not having a car. There's no change in sight and planners and developers continue to tack on more suburbia built around the "all people will drive in the future" plan, despite there still being no such thing as a real 'sustainable car' nor means of building a city around them.
I hear you Robin, and I couldn't agree more. Car dependency has dominated planning and design for far too long although I am starting to see a broader conversation around alternative modes of movement in the mainstream. There's a wider context outside of planning that is also at play which makes it difficult to 'unpick' poor policies of the past, however I remain optimistic for positive change in the future.
@Robin V Are you familiar at all with ‘Plan Melbourne’? If so I’d be interested to hear your thoughts. I’ve only just started reading in to it but my initial impression is that it’s trying to tackle these transport and liveability issues. Seems a little ‘aspirational’ more than strategic at this stage but I’m trying to learn more about it and see if there’s any tangible progress.
Ya no I’m keeping the cars, it’s the epitome of autonomy and privacy it’s like having your own house, you can’t put a trailer on a tram, you cant safely brings your camping gear and kids on a trip in a public bus, if you want mindless efficiency go to China, even their they have cars, before that cities were designed around the horse and buggy and people, sure have light rail but never take away the option to go in your own private vehicle at any time to any place
Very niche content, lol. I hope measures like mixed zoning, better public transport, bike infrastructure and less car infrastructure are implemented because Australian cities and towns are among the worst in terms of walkability at the moment.
I want to thank you for the amazing information you provide to your viewers. This is fascinating material. I appreciate all of your efforts. Many thanks!
The huge error has been to allow Melb and Sydney to increase, yet not develop the regional areas sufficiently to spread the population. That is clearly the best solution for cities and will take the pressure away from high density, barren landscapes full of units without a tree in site... paving and tiles/tin for km on km.
Its interesting that you say its great for Adelaide CBD to be a place for everyone. I'm not sure if that's always the best goal. In Perth you get drunken groups regularly screaming and fighting in front of the main train station most working days at midday. Not sure if they live inner city or whether they're visiting from outback areas, but not the best look for tourists or for the safety of office workers. So not quite convinced that you want the CBD for everyone, as for some it really doesn't work.
It sounds like city planners are using climate change scaremongering to keep them in business. Its not hard. Stick trees up (not so tall so they fall on buildings!). Have light coloured buildings and roofs. Don't use paving on verges and properties. North facing windows, not west facing. Don't build on flood plains. If building in tropical areas or areas with potentially strong winds then choose a suitable building material. Its about doing the things that happened a 100 years ago... planners like they're just reinventing the wheel and charging for it.
Because it will help. It’ll reduce the severity of climate change if we stop burning fossil fuels, and the infrastructure costs will then also be much less. By being proactive in investing we stand to profit from the energy transition, whereas infrastructure costs to cope with runaway warming are just sunk costs with no profit potential. Solar is already cheaper per kw than coal and the trend is the same for all renewables. Our exports of coal and gas will decline in the long term as the rest of the world transitions towards alternatives. It’s not going to happen over night, they’re not going to shut off the gas pipelines tomorrow when the price is so ridiculously high (thanks Putin) but to maintain energy and economic security over the long term we need to adapt. We have a ridiculous amount of renewable energy sources in Australia. If we develop the industry we’ll do really well out of it.
@@lukebm5555 who makes the solar panels? Is China and Russia going green? Taiwan makes 90% of semiconductors if they are at war then there’s no computers no electric cars or electric anything else
Your last reply isn’t showing up in the comments but I read it in my alerts. Seems like you’ve already made your mind up about this mate. Pretty sure neither you or I will have the slightest influence on how things are going to shake out. If we were having this discussion face to face I’d love to get in the weeds about the geopolitics just for the hell of it, but typing back and forth in TH-cam isn’t doing it for me sorry. Have a good one mate, at least put some rooftop solar on that one’s a no brainer, especially at the moment haha - just make sure you get a good inverter.
How is Geraldton to Perth categorised as sub tropical. that is absolutely ridiculous. Perth is meditteranean. Albany is as cool as Melbourne. Adelaide subtropical? Really?
Net zero carbon emissions won't impact the climate of Canberra, of Australia or the world. Feels good factor only. In fact, people feel so good that they then take a flight on a petrol guzzling plane around the world. Choose housing far too big for them with black roofs. Have swimming pools and nice paving for a tidy garden. There is a mass hypocrisy around it.
All the sustainability stuff is ridiculous. Increasingly the bigger cities will living in crowded areas with no backyard. There will be no trees and all underground power. Where are all these natural disasters about to strike people that basically live indoors and rarely appear to venture outside much. Certainly high winds may blow roofs away and cause damage. But there has always been storms and cyclones in Australia. Its ridiculous to suggest its increasing. Surely its more that we're building and living on land that we never used to . More people live on coastal and riverlands. More people build homes not suited to the climate.
Radically different weather conditions... that's a ridiculous comment to start off with. It discredits the rest of the stuff you're saying as it makes it feel more feel good and less factual. Obviously ripping out trees and increasing the density of cities will mean that the heat in the cities will increase. The old suburban block that had trees on the front and back, now 3 properties with no trees at all and the verge is paved. That's replicated across meto areas. Even in new suburbs where there are houses on blocks, the properties are 400sqm max with extensive paving throughout from the block to street level. That is the issue. All the effort to increase density will just make cities far hotter, as there is no longer a tree to cool the environment.
Underrated content.
Unfortunately, across the country, there's been very little effort or intent at all to phase out car dependency. Having now lived in a few states/territories, the theme remains the same. There's some investment in rail/light rail, but ONLY when car dependency had became so chronic that they 'need' something to ease the congestion, rather than building frameworks for cities that leave car ownership as an option not a requirement or comfortable living.
I found myself leaving the architecture industry entirely because I was just sick to death with it. Zoning and planning laws basically make it illegal to design cities without car dependency. The kinds of projects I initially wanted to be getting into just turned out to be unreachable pipedreams because of car-centric laws. Granted, they are far less severe than in countries like the USA, but the kinds of historic, walkable, inner suburbs that people pay absurd figures to live in are basically limited stock because they are illegal to build now, yet its these suburbs that best meet sustainability and liveability objectives. Not a single city in this country has shown any changes to planning laws to facilitate this kind of development so everything is either car-centric suburban sprawl where you can't do ANYTHING without using the car, or they're all just apartment towers. The situation is especially prevalent in smaller cities. Tasmania for example has 4 'cities' ranging from 20,000 - 250,000 people each. Of these, Hobart and Launceston both had public rail services and extensive tram networks and subsequently had their own 'streetcar suburbs', but mid 20th century, these were all destroyed and cars took over. Now your options for living are either "be rich enough to live in one of the walkable inner suburbs" or you buy a car. If you can't get a car and still have to live in car-suburbia hell, then there are bus services but these almost seem to punish you for not having a car. There's no change in sight and planners and developers continue to tack on more suburbia built around the "all people will drive in the future" plan, despite there still being no such thing as a real 'sustainable car' nor means of building a city around them.
I hear you Robin, and I couldn't agree more. Car dependency has dominated planning and design for far too long although I am starting to see a broader conversation around alternative modes of movement in the mainstream. There's a wider context outside of planning that is also at play which makes it difficult to 'unpick' poor policies of the past, however I remain optimistic for positive change in the future.
@Robin V Are you familiar at all with ‘Plan Melbourne’? If so I’d be interested to hear your thoughts. I’ve only just started reading in to it but my initial impression is that it’s trying to tackle these transport and liveability issues. Seems a little ‘aspirational’ more than strategic at this stage but I’m trying to learn more about it and see if there’s any tangible progress.
Ya no I’m keeping the cars, it’s the epitome of autonomy and privacy it’s like having your own house, you can’t put a trailer on a tram, you cant safely brings your camping gear and kids on a trip in a public bus, if you want mindless efficiency go to China, even their they have cars, before that cities were designed around the horse and buggy and people, sure have light rail but never take away the option to go in your own private vehicle at any time to any place
Thanks for your work! 🙌Great video / content!
Very niche content, lol. I hope measures like mixed zoning, better public transport, bike infrastructure and less car infrastructure are implemented because Australian cities and towns are among the worst in terms of walkability at the moment.
I want to thank you for the amazing information you provide to your viewers. This is fascinating material. I appreciate all of your efforts. Many thanks!
Thanks so much David, I'm glad you enjoyed 😀
I’m only looking here to help me decide where to invest. Wake up mate we need you!
We need a couple more major planned cities of 500k - 1M population with a focus on reasonably price and moderate density housing
great video
Isnt MacQuarie point in Hobart going to be the new footy stadium there for AFL. Where will all the other port facilities go.
Man made challenges to get more control over the people
The huge error has been to allow Melb and Sydney to increase, yet not develop the regional areas sufficiently to spread the population. That is clearly the best solution for cities and will take the pressure away from high density, barren landscapes full of units without a tree in site... paving and tiles/tin for km on km.
I LOVE TH-cam ALGORITHMS
I'm a darwin local, the city has fucked up with the living labs initiative.
Unfortunate I hope it works out later :/
With housing I heard something called multigenerational housing and it might be a good idea to do that to save space on land
Its interesting that you say its great for Adelaide CBD to be a place for everyone. I'm not sure if that's always the best goal. In Perth you get drunken groups regularly screaming and fighting in front of the main train station most working days at midday. Not sure if they live inner city or whether they're visiting from outback areas, but not the best look for tourists or for the safety of office workers. So not quite convinced that you want the CBD for everyone, as for some it really doesn't work.
It sounds like city planners are using climate change scaremongering to keep them in business. Its not hard. Stick trees up (not so tall so they fall on buildings!). Have light coloured buildings and roofs. Don't use paving on verges and properties. North facing windows, not west facing. Don't build on flood plains. If building in tropical areas or areas with potentially strong winds then choose a suitable building material. Its about doing the things that happened a 100 years ago... planners like they're just reinventing the wheel and charging for it.
I reckon 10 years ago would have worn a bow tie. interesting how fashions change.
If climate change is going to happen then why are we investing in renewable energy? Why not build infrastructure to deal with it?
We can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time mate
@@lukebm5555 lol that makes no sense mate, why would you give up energy security if it’s not going to help was the point
Because it will help. It’ll reduce the severity of climate change if we stop burning fossil fuels, and the infrastructure costs will then also be much less. By being proactive in investing we stand to profit from the energy transition, whereas infrastructure costs to cope with runaway warming are just sunk costs with no profit potential. Solar is already cheaper per kw than coal and the trend is the same for all renewables. Our exports of coal and gas will decline in the long term as the rest of the world transitions towards alternatives.
It’s not going to happen over night, they’re not going to shut off the gas pipelines tomorrow when the price is so ridiculously high (thanks Putin) but to maintain energy and economic security over the long term we need to adapt.
We have a ridiculous amount of renewable energy sources in Australia. If we develop the industry we’ll do really well out of it.
@@lukebm5555 who makes the solar panels? Is China and Russia going green? Taiwan makes 90% of semiconductors if they are at war then there’s no computers no electric cars or electric anything else
Your last reply isn’t showing up in the comments but I read it in my alerts.
Seems like you’ve already made your mind up about this mate. Pretty sure neither you or I will have the slightest influence on how things are going to shake out. If we were having this discussion face to face I’d love to get in the weeds about the geopolitics just for the hell of it, but typing back and forth in TH-cam isn’t doing it for me sorry. Have a good one mate, at least put some rooftop solar on that one’s a no brainer, especially at the moment haha - just make sure you get a good inverter.
How is Geraldton to Perth categorised as sub tropical. that is absolutely ridiculous. Perth is meditteranean. Albany is as cool as Melbourne. Adelaide subtropical? Really?
Net zero carbon emissions won't impact the climate of Canberra, of Australia or the world. Feels good factor only. In fact, people feel so good that they then take a flight on a petrol guzzling plane around the world. Choose housing far too big for them with black roofs. Have swimming pools and nice paving for a tidy garden. There is a mass hypocrisy around it.
All the sustainability stuff is ridiculous. Increasingly the bigger cities will living in crowded areas with no backyard. There will be no trees and all underground power. Where are all these natural disasters about to strike people that basically live indoors and rarely appear to venture outside much. Certainly high winds may blow roofs away and cause damage. But there has always been storms and cyclones in Australia. Its ridiculous to suggest its increasing. Surely its more that we're building and living on land that we never used to . More people live on coastal and riverlands. More people build homes not suited to the climate.
Radically different weather conditions... that's a ridiculous comment to start off with. It discredits the rest of the stuff you're saying as it makes it feel more feel good and less factual. Obviously ripping out trees and increasing the density of cities will mean that the heat in the cities will increase. The old suburban block that had trees on the front and back, now 3 properties with no trees at all and the verge is paved. That's replicated across meto areas. Even in new suburbs where there are houses on blocks, the properties are 400sqm max with extensive paving throughout from the block to street level. That is the issue. All the effort to increase density will just make cities far hotter, as there is no longer a tree to cool the environment.
wow 24 hour airport... isn't that what most cities have. how backward are Sydney.
Can you speak in a neutral accent? This was very difficult to follow
You must be a town planner. A lot of buzz words and bugger all real planning.