So there’s a nomination to heritage list 187 London Circuit - a vacant 3 story building built in 1967.If successful this will damage Canberra’s livability, sustainability, walkability, affordability, and prosperity. A🧵 to explain why. #CBR
This site is zoned for CZ1 (core zone), with a known redevelopment intention to RL617 (the tallest buildings in civic can go) - it’s the highest density of use zone permissible in the inner north or south. Here it is on the left.
And that's a good thing, because it’s one of the most centrally located sites in Canberra. It’s right next to the legislative assembly bus stops at the nexus of the ACT bus network, a 3 minute walk away from Canberra Centre, across the road from the Legislative Assembly.
This is where we want homes and jobs if we want to lower emissions. People who work here will be able to catch public transport or walk to and from work here more reliably than pretty much any other site in Canberra. The transport emissions of jobs here is lower than elsewhere.
And in turn it would allow for those people to choose not to own a car, because they don't need it. Even if this block isn’t used for housing directly, this will increase the number of people that can choose dwellings without expensive car parking attached.
To maximise the agglomeration effects of concentrated economic activity, this is also where you want to enable future employment. Organisations work better when in close proximity to related services, competitors and other things, which is why we have cities in the first place.
If heritage listed, this won’t happen. The essential built form of this 3 storey building will not change- ever. While overseas it’s pretty common to see new buildings keeping only the facade of the old, it’s not a common practice here.
And of course in the ACT, heritage is weaponised by NIMBYs suing to block housing and other development in ACAT all the time, especially since we protect the 'views and vibes' of places, not just the built form.
If this site is heritage listed them, we will have a higher emission, less sustainable Canberra, where employment is pushed out to areas like Brindabella Business park for lower productivity car dependent employment. Less sustainable, walkable, liveable, and prosperous.
The problem is the Heritage Council can’t have regard to any of this. They are prohibited from examining the social, environmental and economic costs of preservation. It can ‘only considers whether a place has heritage significance’.
Canberra isn’t an old city, but it does have a Heritage Council which needs things to do, which is why it is increasingly focusing on listing mid to late 20th century unremarkable buildings like the former Kingston Post Office or Belconnen Library.
Why? Because everything of clear, uncontroversial heritage value has already been listed, but we have a standing heritage bureaucracy. That’s how you get the cutouts of a never built freeway heritage listed.
In current settings, eventually close to everything in Canberra will be heritage listed, and local NIMBYs will be able to sue any attempt to build anything in Canberra as infringing on the heritage values of an nearby listed place.
If we are serious about addressing the climate crisis, the housing crisis and building a better future for succeeding generations, then we need to actually build. Old, energy inefficient low rise buildings in urban cores are the eggs to that omelet. axios.com/2021/11/06/cli…
The ACT’s Heritage framework is a huge barrier to doing this, and we need to talk about it. And that starts by taking a stand against further freezing Civic into the 20th century land use patterns that got us into this mess in the first place.
Right sorry lol. It's on the right.
This blew up! If you're interesting in creating a more sustainable, affordable, liveable Canberra then come join us at @GreaterCanberra! We're currently looking for people, and there's a lot of progress to be made.
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a thread about how heritage listing this building would be catastrophic to the sustainability, walkability, and prosperity of our city. Well, the Heritage Council has provisionally registered it, and folks its really bad. #Canberra#CBR#Urbanism 🧵
Here’s a link to the Heritage Council’s reasons. There are 8 grounds for Heritage listing places in Canberra, and the Heritage Council found that this building only satisfied 1- ‘Importance to the course or pattern of the ACT’s cultural or natural history’ yoursayconversations.act.gov.au/former-commonw…
The Heritage Council was unsatisfied that the building was aesthetically or architecturally significant. It also isn’t satisfied that the building will contribute to an understanding of the ACT’s cultural history, or of any importance to a community or cultural group or so on
The @TheAtlantic has been doing some excellent work on NIMBYISM and it's costs over the past few months, and the latest piece from @AnnieLowrey is an absolute banger. #CBR#Urbanism
I can tell you that everything in this article is equally applicable to Canberra as it is to San Fran. In both, our planning debate skews very old, very wealthy and very white. And in both they have a large degree of power over what gets built.
And in both, "The flip side of so few participating so much is that everyone else participates so little. Who can blame them?" I have been called brave for turning up to community meetings as the only young renter in the room. I've met so many that went once and then never again
Alright, I'm at the @InnerSouthACT public forum on the new planning bill. If you're a sane person that doesn't spend their evenings attending community forums about urban planning, feel free to follow along. #CBR@GreaterCanberra
First up is Richard Johnston, the head of the Kingston Barton Resident group talking about his impression of the planning bill. The first substantive theme is about the concentration of powers in the Chief Planner.
This is a fairly common thread of concern among community groups and others that have had a look at the planning bill, on both ends of the NIMBY-YIMBY spectrum. The Chief Planner can only be fired for cause and has greater powers under the new bill.