YOUR SAY - URBAN ENVIRONMENT
NIMBY vs YIMBY how big is your backyard? Recent media attention on Sydney’s density and affordable housing issues has intensified in the debate about the Medium Density Housing Code – from which it appears Lane Cove LGA is now exempt. The so-called ‘missing middle’ policy has been under review due to concerns that, if reintroduced to certain areas, medium-density development such as townhouses, terraces, and duplexes, could threaten suburban character and life where residents do not want change. residential precincts. (https://www. citylab.com/perspective/2019/02/nimbyyimby-zoning-geography-housingdevelopment/582064/) As one critic of Boston’s metropolitan planning wrote in 1945, the city “suffers from political institutions which are still adapted to the horse-and-buggy age although modern technology has made of the area one single whole.” This is still true of our NIMBYs today: they think and act in geographic units more suitable for the 18th century than the 21st. (GARRET DASH NELSON – CITYLAB; FEB 6 2019)
Street gallery in backstreet Chippendale
Some critics of the Medium Density policy include Chris Johnson, CEO of Urban Taskforce, and Tony Recsei, president of Save Our Suburbs. From an SMH article on 7 July 2019, it appears they are vocal on two fronts: 1. Relatively medium-rise and lowimpact development could still have bulky proportions that might jeopardise local character in existing low-density suburbs. 2. There should be a concentration of higher density around town centres and infrastructure nodes where land use by zoning can balance retention of lower scale areas with single houses. (http://www.smh.com.au/comment/limitedhigh-rise-can-halt-sprawl-and-preserveour-suburbs-character-20190524-p51qzp. html?btis). In many suburbs, little change has been possible due to perceptions that medium-density building will irreversibly alter suburban character, but debate continues between so-called NIMBYs and YIMBYs (No vs Yes…In My Back Yard) on the question of whether different forms of density done well can create more liveable, cosmopolitan and safer 12 TVO JULY 2019
So perhaps there is another question to be asked – what sort of future urban or suburban environments are the most attractive for ‘extended’ family life? What is the perceived ‘backyard’ today, and what forms of development can best deliver those places that are increasingly sought for socialising and recreation beyond our homes yet are within a walkable distance. That is a key issue whether we live in bungalow, townhouse or unit, and whatever our living circumstances. In a recent statement, NSW Planning and Public Spaces Minister Rob Stokes spoke of the need to reduce spot rezoning by planning proposals but to maintain housing diversity, so it will be interesting to see how the pendulum swings on options for medium-density dwellings.
In relation to planned precincts, which have been controversial in communities such as St Leonards and around Macquarie Park and Ryde in Sydney's north-west, Mr Stokes said it made sense to have development concentrated near transport infrastructure, but that he wanted to collaborate with councils. “… If there are other ways to deliver it, I'm happy to look at it," he said. (SMH ARTICLE15 MAY 2019, JACOB SAULWICK AND MEGAN CORREY)
“Density done well should be judged in context of the precinct surrounding a development.” The concept of density done well should be judged in context of the precinct surrounding a development. It’s critical to consider all open spaces, footpaths and streets as our civic ‘common ground’. Our suburban backyards are fast receding (but should not necessarily disappear entirely), replaced by courtyards, terraces and balconies in conjunction with communal gathering places that are suited to contemporary lifestyle and active street frontages. Places
Medium density projects by AJA in Sydney that engage positively with space beyond their backyards
