FOREWORD The first thing that needs to be said about these development applications is that the proposal is to further develop what has become Launceston’s
‘Cemetery of Hope’.
Along with the city’s histories of colonialism and its aftermath the development, like almost all that has gone before it, is a ‘development’ stained with the surreal and absolute imperative to ignore ‘the geography’ in the cause of profits and dividends that were, and by-and-large still are, realisable elsewhere.
The imperative encapsulated in the euphemism ‘sticking to your guns’ as always trips up its adherents in time when what has driven the recklessness is ultimately revealed and the ‘body count’ is completed.
Remaining determined, resolute and steadfast in the belief that an adopted perspective, often ideologically driven, must prevail despite all evidence to the contrary is worrying. And, given that it all persists whatever compelling evidence is evident, it is at best bewildering. It is especially so here given that ‘Council’ as a planning authority has itself declared a climate emergency.
That the analogy of soldiers remaining at their post firing their guns ‘come what may’ and at what has been assumed to be ‘the enemies of progress’ is a bizarre failure of due process. Moreover, it is an arrogant failure of civic accountability that has brought this so called ‘development’ to a point of absurdity in the ‘planning paradigm’ it now inhabits.
Over time, ‘the place’ has been transformed from what was once, arguably, the most fecund place on the island into what is now essentially something of an ‘industrial wasteland’ with all the scars and pockmarks of its layered histories. It is ‘a place’ littered with the dross of reckless colonialism and its aftermath. That the area was always an inadequate port and that it was to become an unworkable port needs to be acknowledged.
That all this is both denied and downplayed by the city’s planner, in concert with the proponents and the project architects, it is evidence of the unfolding and unfortunate folly that the Inveresk cum Invermay precinct has become. That all this has been sequentially compounded upon by geographically inept planning processes over two centuries, it brings the now City of Launceston to a sorry state.
Universities, as corporate entities, are enormously privileged and as 'corporate citizens' increasingly the justification for these privileges diminish so too should their 'obligations' be on the rise. Professor Brian Smidt, Australian National University's (ANU) Vice Chancellor, is on the record saying, paraphrased, that in the early1980s universities ceased to be the curators of knowledge and information and thus they needed to reinvent themselves. Surely, that will mean that they will need to be increasing contributing to the communities they exist within rather than by default, given 'free kicks' at every turn.
Originally, universities were communities of scholars and teachers. However, as Prof. Smidt alerts us to, they are now by-and-large traders in services in much the same as banks and insurance companies as they reconfigure themselves in 21st Century context.
At the very least 'the wider community' has a right to expect that universities be 'lifters rather than leaners' and contribute equitably to the communities within which they are located. In 2014 Joe Hockey called upon all Australians to 'lift their game' in order to build a better future.
It is more than ironic that what was once the grazing ground of emus water birds and macropods has become a wallow for white elephants.
In Launceston 'the spectre of the flood' colours a significant part of the city's cultural landscape. By now, it should be more than well understood that irrespective of the levy banks, and the supposed flood mitigation, the proposed buildings are to be sited not on a flood plain but rather on a tidal zone – albeit a highly modified precinct.
Moreover, the projected inundation mapping should be a concern to a 21st Century Planning Authority. It is somewhat interesting that the Development Application deliberately avoids references to the site and totally ducks the 'flooding issue'. When you build a building, any building, the first and foremost consideration needs to be its geographic location closely followed by cultural landscaping issues. That this NOT the case here alarm bells ring rather loudly!
Historic imaginings of the precinct as a port and industrial district rather quickly proved themselves to be wrong headed largely informed as they were by the imperatives of a colonial military outpost. In a colonial context, it mattered not just so long as the ‘spoils of colonialism’ reached the ‘motherland’ and in the right pockets.
It is now well understood that despite all the mitigation infrastructure installed to date, the sites are not only likely to be flood prone but are bound to be increasingly exposed to devastation via flooding. There is no longer any ambiguity whatsoever about this. Curiously, the city’s planners choose to somewhat surreally ignore and downplay all this in the face of compelling evidence that developments such as those currently in hand ought not proceed.
The planning speculation that future flooding events are manageable is bizarre given all the unforeseeable damage and risks. It is a speculation that failed the credibility test elsewhere – Brisbane and Lismore to name just two.
However, the insurance industry has apparently made some determinations about the insurability of property in the context of flooding that on the evidence presented in the development applications neither the developers, nor their consulting architects nor the city's planners seem to be in any way mindful of.
This alone should be sounding the loudest possible alarms but it appears yet again that all players have decided to cross their fingers and look away. The individuals involved as likely as not, will be well and truly out of the reach of anyone seeking retribution. This is cynicism writ large!
The city’s planner, verbally at least, has conceded that the sites will indeed flood yet is somehow persuaded that even if flooding turns out to be an increasingly frequent event, it will be “manageable” . That is, despite all the alternative sites and strategic positioning available.
Indeed, the ‘science’ tells us that the site is on track to experience potentially catastrophic flooding events – and more frequently. The inundation mapping is in hand as is the hydraulic modelling. All of which has been presented to Council and UTAS and it has been catalogued in the press.
The proposition of ‘manageability’ is open to challenge in a planning context. This needs no further elaboration. Rather, it is a planning paradigm that needs to be tested for its credibility in the light of these development applications.
That the proposition might have any chance of being endorsed defies logic yet the evidence to support the fact that is being proactively advocated is clear to see.
Looking ahead, on the grounds that the sites are not developable without imposing undue risk to the wider community in multiple ways, these development proposals should be rejected outright. At the very least the proponents should be required to resubmit the applications after further investigation and development.
There is a certain irony in the fact than in June it was four years since 1,500 partitioners brought on a public meeting calling upon council to withdraw its support for the proposals now in hand – flawed as they are.
The irony is compounded given that on the very night the meeting was scheduled to be held in Albert Hall there was a raging flood that only missed overtopping the levies by just a few centimetres. And, that is not to mention the multiple leaks in the levy banks that revealed themselves.
When the rescheduled meeting eventually took place the city’s ‘Aldermen one and all’ were quite prepared to argue the case, in the light of all the evidence, that black was the new white and that UTAS moving towards the CBD would be city’s salvation. The passing of time has presented a totally different picture yet the adherence to the surreal recklessness that set the current sequence of events in train seems to persist – and relentlessly.
The proposed infrastructure built on another site would still deliver the jobs and short term economic benefits and quite possibly with a greater chance of longer term sustainability. However, the long term sustainability of the current 'tertiary education model' is far from secure or sustainable. It is an open question as to what that institutional landscape might look like in a decade or two.
With the levies lowering annually due to their geography, and tidal level increasing due to the declared climate emergency, the prospect of the levies holding diminishes. The generations beyond the present 'in power' are mindful of the future 'baby boomers et al' have left in their wake.
The only salvation the decision makers inclined to endorse this development now might look towards is hopefully being well and truly out of the picture when reality reveals itself.
There should be no doubt that the realisation of the development is feasible in an engineering context. The proposed construction methodology not only fits the 20th Century sensibilities and circumstance of existing infrastructure, it goes a step further to celebrate them.
In a 21st Century context this is more than curious, it is somewhat perverse.
All this by itself is concerning in a 21st Century context given the twin crises of climate breakdown and biodiversity loss. Likewise, culturally, economically and environmentally these factors are the most serious issue of our time.
Considering that globally, buildings and construction play a major part, accounting for nearly 40% of energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions whilst also having a significant impact on our natural habitats. This is non-trivial. That this development proposal clearly ignores all this and that apparently such things do not concern the developer nor their architects it is concerning.
That places like Venice exist it is proof that large infrastructure can indeed be built upon fundamentally unstable foundations in a tidal zone. However, the circumstances that once pertained there have shifted somewhat. However, in a 21st Century context why would a city like Venice need to be built?
Moreover, the Venice proposition is not a circumstance that fits the confluence of two rivers and an estuary on the other side of the planet.
Building in a tidal zone cum flood plain is an esoteric problem rather than anything that calls for a compelling pragmatic solution in the ‘Inveresk circumstance’. Given all the available alternatives – and they exist a plenty.
While this development might well provide engineers and architects with the opportunity to ‘strut their stuff’ it is an effort that is arguably better spent on issues of sustainability and appropriate resource usage – and ideally elsewhere.
Indeed, the project architects for this development, via their professional institute, along with the City of Launceston, have “declared climate and biodiversity emergency”. That both appear to be ignoring that rhetoric is evidence that all parties want to walk on both sides of the street.
Someone once said that they had never seen anybody try to walk on both sides of the street except for a drunk wending his/her way home. They tried it, but it was an awkward business. So, it seems that in order to attempt the walk one needs to be intoxicated.
In a particular case where the opportunity exists, implementing credible demonstrations of these very real world 21st Century, ethical and sustainability concerns should not be so readily dismissed unless of course some form of intemperance is involved.
Nonetheless, it seems that everyone involved in this particular project is more than willing to look away while mouthing the rhetoric.
THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE
The carelessness, in a planning context, regarding civic sustainability is more than bewildering two decades into the 21st Century. That the city’s ‘planner’ asserts that it is not possible to require of developers in Tasmania to be proactive in regard to issues of civic and environmental sustainability as is, and has been, the case in cities elsewhere. Given that the City of Launceston has itself declared a “climate emergency” this is at once alarming and bewildering.
Likewise, given that in this instance the project architects appear to be oblivious to such concerns despite being signatories to their profession’s ‘Sustainability Policy’. Their apparent recalcitrance here is alarming. More to the point, that their clients too, appear to be oblivious to 21st Century sustainability concerns only compounds the recalcitrance on display.
The project architects’ professional body's policy talks about the need for ‘urgent action’ in the face the challenges presented by climate change. That they might talk the talk and not walk the walk is worrying. It is a policy that talks about the ‘commercial and residential building sectors’ that “offer significant potential for achieving deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. This potential can be realised by reducing energy demand and increasing the energy efficiency of buildings.”
The architects' institutional policy goes on to talk about “policy frameworks [that] must be established to achieve greater energy and resource efficiency in the building sector and to facilitate innovation in building design and procurement.” And, it even goes on to talk about “incentives to encourage the alteration, retrofitting and rebuilding of our current building stock to achieve more sustainable outcomes” yet despite all that, and the project architects signing on to the policy, and their apparent lack of adherence to it in this case, for all intention’s purposes, is there for all to see.
Similarly, the assertion that ‘professional planners’ cannot advise planning authorities to ‘require’ energy generation on site and water management lacks credibility. A planning authority is a planning authority, authorised to place whatever conditions it sees fit in regard to any development.
Of course, a planning authority can make any kind of requirement it sees fit and if a developer chooses to appeal its determination surely it would be putting its recalcitrance on public display. In the case of UTAS, and given the city’s ratepayers overt investment in the development, that would hardly be a good look.
That a ‘planner’ in a council’s employ is disinclined to be civically responsive, and policy aware in regard to council’s declaration of a climate emergency here, it beggars belief. Importantly, the proof is no doubt in the documentation for anyone who cares to look.
Apart from the currently mandatory insulation standards and so on, currently large scale corporate construction still need to be increasingly environmentally sensitive. Thus, calling upon developers to impose minimally upon the community, and its civic infrastructure, is a must looking ahead.
HOW MIGHT ENVIRONMENTAL AND CIVIC SENSITIVITIES AND SENSIBILITIES BE HONOURED?
Firstly, urban buildings increasingly should be required to generate a significant percentage of its anticipatable energy requirements – say 25% plus at least. And, especially so for large corprate structures.
The argument that this is unachievable in an urban circumstance for corporate infrastructure just does not stand up. It is especially so in a domestic circumstance where a property can feasibly and economically be self sustaining in an energy context and onsite water management. Australia wide, and equally so in Tasmania, this is being achieved right now.
What was achieved 25 years ago in a central Sydney suburb is more easily achieved on a much larger scale two decades into the 21st Century. Michael Mobbs started setting the pace that this project’s architects should by now be able to eclipse his achievements.
Concerningly, despite the project architects' sustainability boasts they, along with their clients, and now the city’s planners too, seem to lack the will and the wherewithal to even contemplate a proposition where 21st Century sustainability is aimed for.
Moreover, the project architect’s stance as a signatory to their profession's declaration is bewildering to say the very least. That, they still accept a commission for UTAS to abandon their Newnham campus for a set of new buildings on a flood plain cum tidal flat, poses uncomfortable questions. That 'the development' neither demonstrates nor espouses any 21st Century relevant sustainable attributes – income energy (solar & wind) plus on site water collection and management et al – this too beggars belief.
A somewhat sobering read is the Institute of Architects review of this Development Application. Just look for the word 'sustainable' and a references to the 'cultural landscape' or indeed a reference to 'geography'. Either the Institute's "declared climate and biodiversity policy" is hollow rhetoric OR this firm of architects signing on to it is more 'cynical window dressing' than an expression of professional intent going by the Institute of Architects review.
It is also astounding that UTAS might not be seeking to position the university as a 21st Century institution from a marketing perspective. Surely, if they were to do so, focus on the institutions sustainability credentials reflected in its infrastructure in Tasmania and project its 'values' nationally this would enhance its ability to attract students and research funding.
Based on the Development Application presented to Council, at the very best, should only consider conditional support. Given community reaction to recent project approvals and the community's reluctant investment of something like '$10 Million plus', in the proposition UTAS is persisting with, Council might well expect protracted appeals against an unconditional approval.
Against the background, now half a decade in the making, it would seem that there are two options to consider. The first being outright rejection of the Development Application given the now known risks and fiscal consequences that will surely impact upon the city's ratepayers – short, medium and longterm.
Alternatively, as a 'planning authority' council might well consider leaving the application on the table and ask that the proponents to consider coming back once they have more thoroughly investigated the 21st Century sustainability options etc. that are open to them and the city.
In providing the proponents with the opportunity to reconsider their application Council would also be providing the developer and their consultants with the opportunity to take a longer and harder look at the context within which universities exist within in the 21st Century.
Importantly, Council would be doing so in the light of all the paradigm shifts in play. The status quo is being disrupted, thus planners and developers alike need to be alert not only to the disruptions but also the trickle down consequences that in this case will surely impact upon the wider community.
When
President of the USA Ronald Regan pointed out that the
"status quo is quite simply Latin for the mess we are it" he was on the money. World politics might be in a different place in the 21st Century, and in Tasmania too, but President Regan's observation rings as true now as ever it did.
