OVERVIEW
 |
| CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE CLICK HERE TO ACCESS KEY DOCUMENTS |
Against this backgrounding, the discretionary status of this 'development application' is concerning given that it is fundamentally ticking a bureaucratic box in the expectation of winning community approval – as if there is nothing to be contested. That implies that a community, that on the available evidence has not received meaningful consideration could or would have anything to say. Nor might 'the community' expect to have anything resembling ‘engagement’ beyond the comfort of the proponent’s aegis and zone of interest and influence – such as it might be. Yes, there has been engagement with 'council' but not with the wider community in any wider sense.
Essentially, the DAprocess here is intended to be ‘the consultation process’ and it is clear that the proponents are not in any way interested in regarding the place’s COI in any way that resembles ‘unconditional positive regard’ – rather it sees them in an adversarial and antagonistic light and something to be overwhelmed and beaten.
Moreover, the proponent's using a double page spread in the 'local press' to tell readers that they can comment by the end of the close of business 'the next day' puts on display the proponent's disregard for anyone who might have a concern.
On the evidence, the consultation process that is in play here is to provide an adequately detailed plan to Council and stand back to await whatever Council or community approval, or disapproval, that may come the proposal’s way – and then patch up any unanticipated flaws if all that is compelling in any way.
The research into the ‘place’s histories and cultural realities’ is not there and characterising the ‘plan’ as being both underdone and superficial is quite sustainable. It needs to be said however that the consultants here are meeting the expectations of the proponents – their clients.
Clearly, any meaningful consideration of community aspirations and expectations has not been given any priority, on the evidence to hand, and there is no evidence that such considerations are even on the proponent’s agenda at any level.
By way of backgrounding, 'the site’ exists within a cultural landscape that prior to ‘colonisation’ was arguably the most fecund place on lutruwita – the island State of Tasmania now. In a millennial NANOsecond, the people and their cultural reality were displaced, decimated. They were expelled under the guise of Terra Nullius and likewise their cultural landscape was extinguished – in a word trashed ... an exemplar of colonial ethnocide.
To date Peter Cox has presented the most authoritative 'picture' of kanamaluka Tamar thus far. He did not identify. or reference, "ponrabbel" as a PLACEname for the 'country' at the confluence of kanamalika Tamar and the two Esk river systems [laykila?] that was John Renolds in 1969 in his book 'LAUNCESTON: History of a Australian City'. It turns out that Reynolds and Cox provide very useful references in developing a better and more expansive understandings of 'the place' as a ‘cultural landscape’ precolonisation, albeit before palawa-kani and DUALnaming protocols commenced in lutruwita Tasmania.
Incrementally, the ‘placedness’ of this place was transformed into an industrial site, then a wasteland and currently the proposed ‘somewhat tokenistic placescaping’ will not – and should not even attempt to – wash away or obliterate these histories and narratives. The landscaping cum enculturing project in hand might well address, contextualise and interoperate the site’s ‘placedness’ more fulsomely.
There are components of the proposal that go a little way towards this end but there are enormous possibilities yet to be explored and exploited. The case for doing so is compelling in an ethical cum moral context if the project is to embrace 21st C cultural sensibilities and sensitives in a ‘public place’ that has an enormous Community of Ownership and Interest.
Notably, the site has been 'gifted' to the proponent here by the residents and ratepayers of Launceston. There is no evidence whatsoever that the project's proponent is in any way mindful of this 'significant gift' and is seemingly holding 'Launcestonians' virtually in contempt.
FIRST PEOPLE IN CONTEXT
The lack of an overt 'Acknowledgement of Country' is concerning and it is especially concerning that proponents left it until the day before the public comment period closed to 'go to public' in a somewhat sinister attempt to politically sanitise the development and 'cloak it in GREEN'.
Respect and recognition of Tasmanian Aboriginal peoples’ survival and continual connection with the land spanning more than 40,000 years must be overtly acknowledged along with respect to Aboriginal people past and present. All too often this has a hollow ring and here in this development – in so much as it is evident at all – it is as hollow the 'acknowledgements' skipped over in public speech giving.
That said, there is some 'First Peoples' referencing that presumably is informed by the proponent's internal resources. Nonetheless, wider more expansive consideration is needed if respect is to be paid to current sensibilities in 'public placemaking'.
The Press Story in The Examiner March 3 2021 goes some way towards acknowledging 'The First People' past and present yet it seems that once again the proponents of 'development' – colonial, post colonial, et al – are more inclined to seek the comfort of Terra Nullius than engage with 40,000 years of cultural landscaping, placescaping and placemaking. Acknowledging the 'dark histories' that in Tasmania are ever present seems yet again to be too hard a thing to do with dignity and respect.
ARBORIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The value of a tree has been under constant debate since about 1975. As yet no Australian Standard exists. However there are a couple of accepted methods that might be applied.
 |
| CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE |
Trees, especially so in civic circumstances, have real assessable value invested in them. While most 'public assets' depreciate over time, most trees' values 'appreciate'. Thus bureaucratic accountability needs to be revised to accommodate this in the light of 'Climate Change' and the need to reassess 'cultural landscaping, placescaping and placemaking' in a 21st C context.
CLICK ON AN IMAGE TO ENLARGE
- The Carbon value, just calculate the Bio-Mass and multiply by a carbon $X.00;
- The Oxygen value, calculate how much CO2 the tree converts to O2, then apply a price to buy oxygen from say BOC.;
- The real estate value, Look at the percentage increase in real estate in the last ten years in Invermay Road;
- Storm Water value, Each tree has a storm mitigating effect by delaying the Rainfall that falls onto it and before it reaches the traditional SW system, this greatly reduces the peak storm effect, but how you calculate that is an open question;
- Building Assets value, these trees are shading the buildings and reducing the ‘weather’ effects on that infrastructure, nominally 10% reduction in ongoing maintenance costs.
 |
| CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE |
By way of background, the current variety of species chosen where to reflect some of the cultural landscape of the developed site and the urban development in which it sits. As a public place it was also a 'civic planning and design decision' to offer an 'arboretum effect' to supplement “The Botanical Garden” that is City Park, and provide an interpretive experience for the public of species not readily planted in greater Launceston. So, the current 'collection of trees' are a component of 'cultural landscaping' that is apparently being seen as dismissible – and without meaningful community consultation.
Scant if any attention is evident to 'the value of urban trees' in the context of this DA.
 |
| CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE |
In regard to the row of Lombardys defining a main entrance point into the site. Their removal cuts quite a slash thru the landscape heritage and no account seems to taken of this. Moreover, additional Lombardy trees where planted to respect this and to provide a 'way finding element' from afar for such a significant site.
Additionally, there was a single Magnolia Grandiflora planted by an ex station master's wife, a grape vine – a cutting taken from a vine presumably planted by a railyard worker – and other plantings that payed respect to an element of the site's histories were a part of the enculturation of place when Council took ownership of the historic industrial site. So, the plantings where attempting to reflect some of the social cultural dynamics of the place all of which now seems to have been overlooked or downplayed.
So, why no “native trees” in that cultural landscaping? The appropriate endemic natives species are very few. Being a swamp as it was and given that only 'Tea-Trees and Black Wattles' would have grown on the site pre-colonisation. Any eucalypts related to the site would have been found out of the flood zone cum tidal flat.
It is notably that the arborists report mentions nine 'Australian Natives', but finding them mentioned elsewhere in the report is beyond any readers reach.
So, clearly the value of the trees is quiet significant! Because of the combined benefits that green infrastructure provides and the other factors. If a tree is to 'removed' and not 'repositioned' clearly this incurrs a 'loss' – an assessable loss at that. Given this, when a tree is 'lost' there is a need reimburse the loss, in money terms, and use those funds to plant 'trees' elsewhere. In regard to this site the 'cash loss' is not likely to be anything less that AU$1,000.
Support for community gardens is a very much like congratulating motherhood albeit that in both instances 'the good' is not always automatic or is it always all that evident.
But ripping out elements of a maturing urban forest for a few 'veggies' is quite simply classic architectural 'territory marking cum corporate branding'. Surely proposing a similar 'style solution' for a heritage listed building would bring on cries of “heresy" and "how dare you” – anyway what would I know, I'm just a cultural producer and cultural geographer and only 'architects' can design. In any event, there are a great many 'great building' built by 'builders' who are not architects – buildings in the vernacular that architects tend to reference/plagiarise in their grand schemes.Whatever, there are many simple ways that would allow for many/most of trees to remain or even be transplanted. If there are indeed any real negative impacts on a building or infrastructure there are ways and means to deal with that – ways that were once out of reach but are no longer. And yes, there are countless opportunities on this site to provide a realistic functional productive landscape layer that pays due respect to current cultural sensibilities and sensitivities too.
If we were to truly search for an exemplar of 'enculturing place' we might profitably take a look at the city of Kassel in Germany. On Joseph Beuys' initiative in 1982 the city established a forest of 7,000 Oaks that not only thrives but stands today as an exemplar of 'urban cultural greening'. Moreover, it is an exemplar of community participation that in various ways in Australia that found its way into 'greening projects' – Landcare being one albeit not always acknowledged.
It must be a a condition of approval that the University of Tasmania adequately compensate the Launceston community for the loss of every single 'maturing tree' that it removes in its 'placemaking' on this site.
INTERPRETATION
Aside from any of that, there is already a great deal to absorb and looking ahead there is bound to be more yet. Yes, there are references in the proposal to 'touch stones' but the layers of complexity, and the diversity of the site's COI, a mechanism of contextual interpretation is needed. Indeed, it must be a condition of approval and especially so given that in the 21st C there are options available that does not have 'visual pollution' as an outcome.
The provision of appropriate interpretation mechanisms, along with appropriate way finding mechanisms, must be a condition of approval in regard to this development application.
ONGOING MAINTENANCE
It is to be expected that the University of Tasmania will fulsomely maintain this cultural landscaping but there is no apparent reference to the institution making any kind of commitment to do so. As a university, the proponent does not pay rates and consequently it relies upon 'the council' to provide all manner of 'civic services' but in this case there must be no ambiguity whatsoever.
Community gardens, the successful ones, require careful management and curation and leaving maintenance, planning and upkeep to the 'the community' would be naive in the extreme. Yet it is an issue that the proponent must take full and unambiguous responsibility for given the subliminal 'marketing' that it is projecting via this 'placemaking project'.
Again, a formal commitment to appropriately maintain all the cultural landscaping is a must given the apparent 'marketing value' the institution has clearly invested in the project.
In regard to the overall development the city's ratepayers and residents will be carrying, indeed are already carrying, a significant fiscal burden that must be contained. Thus, all relevant 'costs' need to be born by the University of Tasmania without question – no ifs, no buts.
IN CONCLUSION
Firstly, it must be said tat this development offers many positive things and in many ways it makes some significant steps forward in a 21st C context. That said, it is something of a disappointment that there are so many 'environmentally sustainable' technologies and strategies that are not in evidence – in this project and related infrastructure in this location.
Presumably the proponents will claim, yet again, that they lack the resources but that is an assertion that wears increasingly thin as time passes and as it is realised that 'resources' can be diverted from one faltering strategic outcome towards others – and sensibly.
Notably, with the impacts of 'climate change' already upon us, the employment of renewable energy does not figure in any obvious way, albeit that the 'cloak of green' is donned and paraded so, so overtly. Here again we have a 'corporate citizen' mouthing the rhetoric but in reality, backing away from inconvenient truths. Put another way, the talk is not all that often being matched by the walk. It is a sad state of affairs.
Moreover, when UTas made its initial promises to Launcestonians back in 2016 to justify their gifting the land to the university to shift its operation just four kilometres onto a flood plain cum tidal flat, largely those promises have not been delivered upon.
Moreover, the city's CBD's prosperity is faltering as it was ever likely to in the wake of global digital disruption. Likewise international students are not coming to Australia in the numbers the University of Tasmania asserted that they would.
On top of that, the COVID-19 pandemic is dampening community wellbeing in ways that have, and will yet deliver, an unforeseeable future.
The histories are what they are, nevertheless they do impose new layers of accountability upon the university and in ways that will mean that, as a corporate citizen, the institution will need to pay much closer attention to its accountability. There is already a great deal to account for.
The university's 'March 3 strategy' where 'the public' is offered but two days to comment upon their development application as if there would be nothing to say demonstrates an arrogance that is hard to fathom. An important question arises. Has the University of Tasmania in fact lost, or jettisoned, its moral compass?
Rather than yet again giving the University of Tasmania the benefit of the doubt, council must on this occasion carefully scrutinise the application and unambiguously place appropriate conditions upon the proponent.
No comments:
Post a Comment