I attended a meeting on 21 June where there was a motion to rescind the gifting of land by the Launceston City Council to the University to relocate to Inveresk.The arguments put forward by the LCC for the gifting of land seem to me to lack vision and future planning by applying the ‘one size fits all’ view that universities are all moving into cities to create ‘vibrancy’.
This may be true but Launceston has a unique feature – the problematic river system – illustrated recently by the devastating flood danger.
An irony was that the Inveresk university site was one of the first to receive evacuation notice - to the Newnham university campus and that both river bridges may have had to be closed.
So why is it so important that the university be resited to Inveresk when a new building could be built much more cheaply at Newnham in a safer building environment with room for expansion, existing sports grounds, library, cafes, student accommodation - and still be minutes away from the city on a highway system?
Perhaps the Real Estate Industry Tasmania CEO Mark Berry sees it more clearly when on May 26 the Examiner reported that Mr. Berry praised the freeing up of the Newnham site for future property development because ‘the area is still exceptionally close to the CBD and is close to all resources.’
Mr. Berry also said ‘he thought students would remain in the area…’
The LCC has allowed large national corporations to dictate retail planning over the past few decades and this has led to the CBD losing its vibrancy. So why should the Northern suburbs have to suffer retail, social and environmental disruption because retailing structure in the CBD has changed?
Perhaps the LCC could plan, rezone and advertise extensively in the same way they have been supporting the Uni move – so that the CBD could become more residential which would create boutique shopping, more vibrancy and less reliance on future poverty stricken students for revival of the CBD
Dr Edna Broad
You are absolutely right Edna. The City Council has put no other truly considered effort into CBD improvement, just relying on huge taxpayer handouts to move a campus that doesn't need moving! And this disgusting waste of money when the Hospital and sewerage works and other important projects are in need of funds and which would be an honest use of such vast sums of taxpayer money, and would bring benefits and jobs (that old mantra) as well without destroying Mowbray-Newnham investment and businesses.
ReplyDeleteThe City Council is obviously happy to let the Northern Suburbs to suffer a huge downgrade! They have given NO consideration to Mowbray, they have givenn NO genuine consideration to the already ridiculous traffic situation at the Tamar Street bridge/Railway roundabout - where it takes Tiger Bus mosre than 7 minutes to get out of the Inveresk car park into the roundabout. And that's not to mention the traffic at the Charles St Bridge lights (both sides of the North esk River).
The Examiner EDITORIAL, as it's called, (no writer's name ever given, so who is the puppet writing for the university pro-moving group) pushes the weak-as-water proposal on most days. On 24 June EDITORIAL told us "it's okay to build roads, but councils have to pay for their upkeep" and went on about new hospital wards or palliative care places and then had the cheek to lecture readers about the "ongoing costs of running these types of facilities" outstripping "the cost of building them in the first place".
Well, well, well, how odd! EDITORIAL chants a different tune when it comes to pushing the building of a monster on a flood plain when buildings, including new buildings built to purpose don't forget, already exist at vibrant Mowbray. Won't the monster buildings planned to take away open space at Inveresk and Willis St need ongoing costs on top of the cost of building them in the first place???? The Examiner should be ashamed of itself. Time to cancel our FairFax Examiner subscriptions perhaps?
The hypocracy of the City Council is mind boggling.
Louise McK.
Who are the main people pushing this very poor plan to move the university closer to the CBD? And just where do they live? Do they know how far the existing campus is from the CBD? Seems not. Do they know anything about the Northern suburbs? Don't think so.
ReplyDeleteLet's see. Who are they and where do they live? The university Vice-Chancellor lives in Sandy Bay, near Battery Point, Hobart.
The Launceston mayor Albert Van Zetten does not actually live in the Launceston City Council district, doesn't he live in the West Tamar Municipality? None of the aldermen live in the Northern suburbs of Launceston.
The Launceston City General Manager doesn't live in the northern suburbs. Is he, the General Manager, a Launceston City resident/ratepayer?
Do any of the group of private school principals live in the Northern suburbs? Don't reckon.
Do any of the mayors of the neighbouring councils live in the Northern suburbs or are they residents (and therefore ratepayers) of the Launceston City?
What a bunch!!
SLAM, (Student-living-at-Mowbray.)
Let's call it the Squishy Squashy Inveresk campus plan. Squishy because it's a flood plain and squishy underfoot, and a flood risk as all of Tasmania saw two weeks ago when everyone in the whole area was evacuated, as Dr Edna pointed out. (Ironically evacuated to the Newnham campus. Lol)
ReplyDelete'Squashy' because the Inveresk site is not even as big as the main car park at the existing campus. There are large sections at the present campus at Mowbray to allow for growth and expansion, unlike the Inveresk site where it would be squashed and squeezed in and take even more public open space away from the people. (Already the City Council has said that part of the Launceston Show land could be given over to the University for car parking.) (Read their MOU as they call it).
Squashy because the pushers want to squeeze more traffic and parking into the BUSIEST traffic area in Launceston and all the streets around Inveresk suburb during the week are already full (something like the streets in Mowbray neighbouring the University). Alderman Janie Finlay, or whatever her name is, sounded like she was stark raving mad at the meeting mentioned by Dr Edna when she (Janie) went on and on about how wonderful it would be having 16,000 students around the CBD. "Imagine having 16,000 ..." she raved.
As one of the business owners at Mowbray said, not knowing about J. Finlay's ridiculous exhortations, "Imagine an extra 10,000 or more bottoms using the sewerage system there every day at least once." Even more squish! Not something one really wants to imagine, but something the aldermen and the pushers clearly don't have a problem with.
And as for the two main people who have pushed this thing to this point, how long have they been in Tasmania/Launceston? The Vice-chancellor only came to Tasmania about 5 or 6 years ago, the launceston City General manager about the same time, about 5-6 years ago. Liberal politician Bass member Nikolic also about the same, just long enough before the last federal election to get his face shown around the place, as he already planned from Canberra to stand in Bass. We could see that by his letters to the Examiner at the time.
Hmmm. looks like the three of them are fly-ins, on career moves with their own best interests at heart. Because they certainly don't have Launceston ratepayers best interests at heart, let alone the Northern suburbs' interests.
A new heading for their glossy hyperbole could read 'WELCOME TO THE NEW SQUISHY SQUASHY CAMPUS. Here we will squeeze 16,000 students, their transport and their toileting requirements... (feel free, dear reader, to add your own words to the new hype ...)
Angry.
Well said Dr. Edna! If only the 'authorities' would listen!
ReplyDeleteCheck out the Examiner's FaceBook page for over 143 comments about the Utas Liberal etc funding promise. Every single comment against the idea. Not one in favour as at 7 pm tonight.
ReplyDeleteAngry