well until temperatures rise over 38 degrees. Then we're stuffed. Or rather
par boiled.
But we don't have air con - so in the heat wave of the past few days
I've been looking around for ideas to keep cool when you could fry
eggs on the footpath outside. Heres some of the ideas we tried:
1. Pin up a bed sheet or blankets outside your windows. The key is to
do it outside rather than inside - you want to stop the heat before it
enters the your house - not afterwards. Also try to leave a gap
between the barrier (sheet, blanket etc) and the wall or glass of your
home - that way you'll get less heat transfer. Here's a guy who used
$5 reflective blankets to keep his home cool (just make sure you don't
position the blanket so that it bounces the heat somewhere you don't
want it - you might end up frying your garden).
2. Put a wet blanket over the top of the car and cover all the windows
(this didn't harm my duco at all - but try it at your own risk).
3. Cut the bottoms off water bottles, dig them neck down in the soil
beside sensitive plants and fill with water - this should drain into
the soil gradually throughout the day. You can cover plants likely to
burn with bed sheets too - pick a light colour to reflect heat. Of
course you can always take the attitude of my friend Tim, and see days
like Friday as a form of natural selection - let the heat kill of the
tender ones, and replace them with some tougher plants.
and the best one of all...
4. Run away. Go stay in a 5 star hotel with a pool and air con. We did
this on Friday night, and it was fantastic. I figure that the hotel is
cooling the whole building anyway - and for the 5-6 nights of the year
that are so ridiculously hot that good passive design and fans can't
cope - it's a better option than shelling out for an air conditioning
system which is just going to contribute to pushing up peak demand and
blackouts.
As I've said before in an earlier post - the problem with being Australian is that the seasons are all wrong. Or rather, the problem with being Australian we're all wrong for the seasons.This is never more obvious than when you find yourself slaving over a hot stove producing roasted turkey and root vegetables on a swelteringly hot 25th of December, and then follow it with steamed christmas pudding and brandy sauce (except maybe when you find yourself wearing a fake beard and a bikini).
How about the way we ignore all the beautiful asparagus, salad greens, strawberries and summer fruits in season in favour of nutmeg, oranges, sultana's and nuts. Or decorate our houses in tinsel and sparkly lights, which just end up looking kind of bedraggled and sweaty in the heat.
And then there's the problem of the Christmas tree. There's really not anything much more incongruous than a Germanic pine tree covered in sparkly lights in the middle of Australian summer. I always think they look a little sad. And worse they make me feel like I'm having a pretend, lets-make-do-since-we're-here-and-not-there Christmas. And that's not how I feel at all.
I love Australian Christmas, and I love the traditions we have which suit our climate and culture. I love the family game of cricket after lunch out in the back yard, or outside on the street. I love the massive bowls of cherries, and the pavlova, and I especially love the prawns. I just think we have to do a better job of translating the other Christmas traditions so that they move beyond threadbare nostalgia to something that celebrates who we are, where we are, and our connection with our environment.
So this is my attempt to have an eco-friendly Australian Christmas tree. I thought about getting a Wollemi Pine, which is a pretty elegant solution. It not only looks like a traditional Christmas tree - but by planting it you're helping to conserve a native endangered species, you can feel even better about yourself by buying one from here and donating funds to cancer research.But I didn't go that way because, well, lets face it, you've got to be satisfied with a pretty small tree until it has a chance to grow a little.
So this was my solution - it's on the wall because floor space is a bit of a premium at my place. We collected some eucalyptus branches from a road side reserve (so I figure the council would have cleared them out anyway, and I wasn't impacting on the the habitat value of fallen wood too much). And I sprayed them with a little silver paint. I figure this is a more sustainable option than a plastic or farmed tree (even with the silver paint).
I haven't decorated it yet - I'd like to do that closer to Christmas Eve and then leave the tree up for the 12 days of Christmas until January 6th.
Will post photos of the tree later when it's dressed.
Labels: philosophies + opinions
So I did the Buy Nothing Day on Saturday - and I'd love to say I had an epiphany - but really I didn't - not even a little one.Maybe it's because we didn't really go far from home, and we certainly didn't go shopping (why would you if you can't buy anything?); so we weren't exposed to much in the way of impulse-buying temptation or marketing.
Although I did pass a little festival of consumerism outside the Nike outlet on the way home - they must have been having some kind of sale because the queue to get in was all the way down the block. Apologies for the crappy photos, I used the phone camera, and I couldn't take a better shot because Adrian kept saying "Come on Kate, they're all looking at us".
I also cheated a bit - we didn't have any food in the house, so we went out for breakfast to our local cafe. And then we bought ingredients for dinner at the supermarket later (but strictly food items only).
I'm not sure whether food counts. And I also was talking to a friend who was getting her car serviced and buying a second hand sideboard on Saturday. Is it against the Buy Nothing Day rules to pay for recycled goods, or for services?
Is it 'buy nothing' day - as in spend no money at all? Or is it more like a buy 'no things' day?
I guess it also depends on what's motivating you to do it. In my case I'm less concerned about the social or moral implications of consumerism than I am with environmental impact (although I acknowledge that they're related).
If you're concerned about the ecological 'footprint' of your consumption - then it's arguable that eating out in a cafe is more sustainable than cooking at home. You have all the economies of scale, and the possibility of minimising waste (although whether that actually happens is another thing...).
Paying for services and buying recycled goods is pretty good in terms of sustainability too - certainly much better than a shopping spree at Nike.
Labels: philosophies + opinions
Economic growth may one day turn out to be a curse rather than a good.
Hannah Arendt
So I've decided to take part in Buy Nothing Day this Saturday the 29th.
At least I'll try. It will be interesting to see just how often I have to restrict myself. And it will be interesting too to pay attention to the kinds of things I want/need to purchase, and find out just how much my lifestyle is driven by, or structured around, what I consume.
I guess with the current financial crisis and downturns in the retail sector a lot of community minded people might see this as a good time to be out there spending. And they're right. The problem is that that spending money today is a only ever going to serve as a quick fix to the current downturn, and does nothing to address the underlying fact that our current economic models are fundamentally unsustainable.
Because, of course, our financial markets, not to mention our lifestyles, rely on constant growth and expansion. The definition of a recession, or depression for that matter, is a lack of growth. In order to survive in our current economic structure; a business has to expand. Children are expected to have a better standard of living than their parents, and this usually translates into a larger house, and more consumer goods. The developed world needs to be able to access the markets of the developing world in order to maintain expansion, and when people in countries like India and China access those markets, they are also obliged to embrace the associated behaviors of growth, expansion and consumption.
The problem of course is that infinite growth is not sustainable. It just can't happen. If everyone in the world lived like I do we would need 4 planets to live on. Which means I use up the resources of three other people. Clearly my current lifestyle is not sustainable, or at least it's only sustainable if I can make sure that the other three guys aren't going to ever want more (or take more). And even that's impossible, because in order to maintain my current lifestyle, we need to expand our markets, which means trying to get those three other guys to buy the stuff we make. The more I do that, the more they're going to become like me... and... it's a vicious cycle.
A very Faustian choice is upon us: whether to accept our corrosive and risky behavior as the unavoidable price of population and economic growth, or to take stock of ourselves and search for a new environmental ethic.
Edward O. Wilson
So what do we do?
I wish I had an answer.
I especially wish I had an answer which I'd want to hear if I was working in the retail sector.
I think we could start the process of change by..
- thinking about the problem and admitting that things are not working...that they're really really not working.
- not letting the urgent always take precedent over the important (I think Leo said something like this in the West Wing episode '365 days').
- growing to understand ourselves; paying attention to our behavior, and recognising the cultural forces which drive us to behave in certain ways. We need to learn to see the paradigms we operate within which function to make some aspects of our lives visible (this deodorant looks cool, I'll buy it), and render other aspects invisible (the product will last a month but it's packaging will last an aeon in landfill).
- recognising that if we continue to trust in a kind of laissez-faire-capitalism style of philosophy that suggests that if we leave things to their own devices everything will work itself out, we just might end up with a world we don't want to live in...or worse.
- seeing that the economic system as we know it (with the underlying requirement of constant growth) isn't inevitable. It is a relatively new idea historically (200 years or so) and that there are lots of other existing models for barter and exchange of goods which might be more sustainable.
Maybe after Saturday I'll understand more about how I operate; what's driving my needs, desires and behaviors? What and who am I now, and what I want to become...
Maybe. Anyway - will let you know how I go.
Are you doing it? Let me know if you're doing an event (especially in Melbourne) or otherwise tell me how your BND goes!
Labels: eco news, philosophies + opinions
We came all this way to explore the moon, and the most important thing is that we discovered the earth.
— William Anders
William Anders left Texas faster than any human had ever traveled before - rockets launched him into space and he and the other crew of the Apollo 8 traveled for three days before reaching the moon and becoming the first people ever to see its hidden side.
On Christmas Eve 1968, while on the dark side of the moon William Anders took this photograph of the distant earth rising over the horizon. Originally labeled image AS8-14-2383, as it captured the public imagination it became known simply as 'Earthrise'.
This photograph triggered a fundamental paradigm shift; it changed the way we thought about ourselves and our relationships to each other and the environment. This image allowed us to conceive of 'the planet' as opposed to 'the world', and seeing the earth floating; beautiful, tiny and fragile in the void of space inspired a movement of environmental consciousness which is still active today. This Christmas Eve will be the fortieth anniversary of breaking of that old gestalt - which is worth a little reflection perhaps.
No one, it has been said, will ever look at the Moon in the same way again. More significantly can one say that no one will ever look at the earth in the same way. Man had to free himself from earth to perceive both its diminutive place in a solar system and its inestimable value as a life -fostering planet. As earthmen, we may have taken another step into adulthood. We can see our planet earth with detachment, with tenderness, with some shame and pity, but at last also with love.
— Anne Morrow Lindbergh, 'Earth Shine,' 1969.
Labels: philosophies + opinions, quotes
The image above shows a section of Charlotte Street showing the existing road profile, and stormwater treatment. So basically the water runs over the road, picking up pollutants on the way, and then falls directly into the drain, where it flows on into the Yarra and does significant damage.
There's lots of ways to introduce stormwater treatment, and some of them require very little changes to the existing kerb and road layout - but the solution I've drawn up here is a little more elaborate.
What we could do is remove the kerbs altogether and allow the road and footpath surface to slope gently down to a vegetated swale (or mini wetland) on one side of the road . The green strappy leaved plants in the swale act to clean and filter the water before it reaches the drains (click here to see plan showing possible location of swale). We could store our stormwater in underground tanks so that we can use it for watering public landscapes. And the whole system can be designed so that in a storm event any overflow will be carried away by the existing stormwater infrastructure.
image of a stormwater treatment swale in the docklands from WSUD an organisation dealing with water sensitive urban design in Sydney, which provides lots of useful practical information.
Labels: stormwater, water
Both the cockroach and the bird would get along very well without us, although the cockroach would miss us most... (Joesph Wood)
0 comments Posted by Kate McMahon at 3:03 pmI was sitting at home working a moment ago when I heard the sound of what I thought was a tennis ball hitting the window high up on the side of our house.
I looked up as a bird fell into the court yard, and I watched it as it lay on the ground where it landed and twitched a little before lying still. A indigenous Little Wattlebird, dead.
And I feel faintly ridiculous about this, but the bird dying has upset me a little. I'm not used to watching a creature die. And I'm not used to being confronted by my impact on the natural world as directly as this.
This whole blog is supposed to be about how to make my neighbourhood more ecologically sustainable, but for this bird the fact my house existed at all, with it's unnatural glass surfaces, was enough. And right now, faced with the reality of this little prone body, the life of even one wild bird seems like a high price to pay.
I'm feeling a little guilty.
Labels: philosophies + opinions, quotes

I stumbled across this car parking stand-off in Calton. The cars are parked behind an apartment block. The laminated note attached to the toy car reads:"DO NOT REMOVE. This is the property of unit one. We pay rent for this carpark and thus shall utilize it for whatever vehicle we see fit".
Classic.
Mind you, when it comes to sustainability I guess the space occupied by car parking is often hotly contested. The battle lines are drawn a little like this:
vs
car parking spaces
Sometimes we have to choose between a street tree or a car parking space. Of course trees provide obvious environmental benefits; they reduce green house gases, filter pollution in the air, and reduce the amount of heating in summer. A car parking space on the other hand is probably never going to contribute much to sustainable suburbs - although whether providing a car park is actively 'bad' depends on how many of them are available. If you provide 'enough' car parking spaces, then by definition you're facilitating the use of the private cars; the easier it is to get a park, the more likely you are to drive and the less likely you are to use public transport. But by strictly limiting the amount of parking available then you can begin to tip the balance the other way.
At other times we have to choose between having a row of parking or a dedicated bike lane. You can guess which one of those two options wins out in the green stakes.
Christopher Alexander suggests that no more than 9% of any neighbourhood or development should be given over to parking. He recommends this partly to reduce the amount of traffic (and encourage pedestrian life and public transport use), but also because higher concentrations of parking (on ground level) tend to have a negative affect on the urban fabric. Walking through big expanses of parking is nowhere near as pleasant an urban experience as walking past a row of shops, or along a leafy footpath. And it's no coincidence that on TV the bad guy is always shown kidnapping innocents in the car park as they're walking to their car...big car parks feel exposed, dangerous, and alienating.
At the moment all the fresh drinking water we use to shower in and to do our laundry is going straight down the drain after a single use. On top of that, most of us are using more fresh drinking water to water our gardens.
This is a shame - because treating greywater on a neighbourhood scale is pretty straightforward - in principle at least.
Here's a plan showing a possible integrated blackwater, greywater and stormwater treatment system. I’ll run over the possibilities for greywater now, and cover blackwater and stormwater in later posts.
There's a lot of greywater capturing & storage devices out there which individual households can use for their own gardens. Because the greywater isn't processed, each household would have to manage their choice of laundry and toiletry products so that the water was suitable for their garden, or else use the unprocessed greywater on ornament plants which are tolerant of the salts and chemicals it contains. Subsurface delivery systems are recommended (less health risk).
But if we think on a larger scale we can do a lot more with our greywater. We could divert the water we use for washing from entering the main sewerage system and have it carried from our laundry and showers by underground pipes to a series of reed beds housed in a greenhouse located in the existing community garden area.
This reed bed will be capable of processing our greywater, regardless of products used in it, to a level where it is safe for use on all plants (including edible plants). Strictly speaking it would be potable, but the recommendation is that you use this kind of water for everything except drinking.
This wouldn't be a cheap intervention, and I imagine the main cost would be in upgrading the existing sewage infrastructure. Of course it depends on who is paying the bill. If we cover the cost as residents, then it will probably take a long time before it pays for itself (assuming water stays as cheap as it is) - but if state government decided to invest in the local treatment and recycling of our water then it would have the benefit of helping to relieve the pressure and cost of maintaining and upgrading our major centralised infrastructure, and maybe then it's not such a bad deal.
In terms of infrastucture the most complicated aspect would probably be setting up the plumbing to capture the greywater in individual houses - some houses in our neighbourhood have suspended timber floors and would be pretty straightforward, but others would be quite difficult. Digging down to the existing sewage and running an greywater pipe alongside wouldn't be technically difficult, but would require a significant amount of earth works.
So what are the benefits of having a greywater treatment system? Well, we'd reduce the amount of drinking water we use for watering the garden (and possibly, for flushing our toilets) which would in turn reduce the pressure on the existing infrastructure, and it would be easier to keep our gardens and street tree's alive in summer. And we'd also reduce the amount of water entering the sewage system, with flow on benefits to existing treatment systems, and the amount of water entering the bay.
Do you ever wonder if it might be easier to generate the sort of massive changes we need to make to our lifestyles if we were engaged in some kind of war or a pitched battle?
The problem is that when it comes to environmental issues there really is no enemy. We can direct our aggression to a few amorphous corporate entities, and maybe people who drive massive 4x4 SUV’s if you're so inclined. But really, the actual enemy is ourselves.
This poses a dilemma because we’re really not good at coping with the ‘enemy within’. The enemy which is us.
Improving our sustainability is more like going on a diet than it is like going to war, and we all know how successful the average diet is.
We’re simply better at initiating changes to our attitudes and lifestyles when we’re at war – which is probably why we try to cast problems into that mould even when it’s completely counter productive to do so, perhaps we create the war against drugs, or attack Iran and Afghanistan as part of a war against ‘terrorism’ because that's the only way we know how to respond.
So anyway. Good news. I think I found someone who can be our scapegoat...our environmental bogey-man.
I’ve been reading Bill Bryson’s “A Short History of Nearly Everything” – fascinating and entertaining in equal measures – and he recounts the story of an engineer come chemist called Thomas Midgley Jr.
Thomas Midgley Jr. is the devil. Except he's not really. He's just a scientist with few scruples who was well respected by many in his day, and that is what makes this sorry tale so scary.
If you ever get a chance to borrow a time-machine to travel backwards in history in order to ensure someone is never born, consider visiting Mr and Mrs Thomas Midgley Sr.
Thomas Midgley Sr. was an inventor, and his son Thomas Midgley Jr. initially trained as an engineer, but eventually took after his father to become an inventor as well.
The first problem Midgley turned his attention to was engine knock and associated fuel efficiency. His unfortunate solution was to add a lead solution to the fuel (tetra-ethyl lead or TEL). There were less toxic solutions available which he discovered at the same time, but lead was the cheapest, had the least offensive odour and was the most efficient, so Midgley ran with it. And the evidence indicates that he ran with it while being fully aware of the toxic affects of lead in the atmosphere and in the human body.
People started dying almost immediately from the affects of his innovation. By the mid 1920’s more than 40 factory workers who produced the lead fortified fuel for Ethyl (the corporation who produced the product) were dead or deranged. The Ethyl factory in Deepwater was nicknamed the 'House of Butterflies’ by the workers because of the hallucinations they experienced while working there.
Midgley’s crime is that he knowingly introduced a "creeping and malicious poison" into the environment, and also that he then deliberately assisted in the large scale corporate cover up which followed for the next 50-60 years.
TEL is still being produced, although we stopped adding it to fuel in the 1980’s. Of course we’re stuck with the lead; which is now in the atmosphere forever.
So just in case you think that’s not enough to earn Midgley some kind of serious enemy-of-the-planet status – just wait, there’s more...
The second problem Midgley addressed was the serious one of poisonous gases leaking from early refrigerators.“Midgley set out to create a gas that was stable, nonflammable, noncorrosive, and safe to breathe. With an instinct for the regrettable that was almost uncanny, he invented chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs.”
So first he flooded the atmosphere with lead, then created the ultimate ozone annihilator. The man was a planet killer!
A postscipt: In case you'd prefer a hero to inspire rather than someone to revile - there's no shortage of those, and we could do worse than to look to a man called Clair Patterson. Patterson discovered a method of measuring lead in the atmosphere and then sacrificed his career by carrying out a courageous long term campaign against Ethyl and other large lead producing corporations. It is largely due to his efforts that lead was finally banned from food containers and fuel in the 70's and 80's.
Labels: philosophies + opinions
For the first time in my life I saw the horizon as a curved line. It was accentuated by a thin seam of dark blue light—our atmosphere. Obviously this was not the ocean of air I had been told it was so many times in my life. I was terrified by its fragile appearance.
Labels: quotes
Monday was the first day of spring here.
I celebrated by biking around in the sunshine with my daughter, doing an informal playground tour, and chatting happily to people we met about the weather.
And today is another beautiful spring day. Walking around in a t-shirt (maybe being a little over confident of the sun) I found myself thinking about how today was the perfect day to go hunting for Easter eggs. But of course we don't do Easter in spring here - we do it in Autumn just as the weather is getting grimmer and the winter winds are starting.
It's crazy stuff, after all Eostre was the goddess of spring, and the Christian celebration is supposed to be about rebirth. On the first warm spring days like today I feel like celebrating all those things - but in March/April - it's all academic.And our Christmas is even more ridiculous. Christmas is a profoundly wintery event: It’s holly, puddings, candles, yule logs and all those reworkings of pre-Christian Winter solstice celebrations (Yule, Natalis Solis Invicti, Saturnalia).
And all these things are beautiful on the coldest, shortest, darkest day of the year…Christmas is supposed to be a little twinkling light in a dark cold place.
But we celebrate it right in the middle of summer. Hot turkey dinners, sweaty tinsel and fake snow in the heat and dust. It’s a little sad...we should be dancing around maypoles instead.
Melbournes seasons, based on writing of Dr. Beth Gott of the School of Biological Sciences, Monash University.
I'm not saying we should do the whole Christmas in July thing- but I think it's a shame. It's a shame because when we have a beautiful spring day like today - we have no way of celebrating it.And I also wonder whether this serves to increase our sense of disconnection from the landscape and the ecological systems that we exist within.
When the people who established the city of Melbourne arrived, they bought with them the Roman calendar, their northern celebrations, and a year which is divided into four seasons - along with their ideas about the landscape and how it works. Those of us who still live here have inherited all of these things.
How many of us still think of winter as a time of dormancy, and summer as a time of growth and life, rather than something closer to the opposite? Or else think of wild fire as a purely destructive force, rather than a process which brings life and regeneration, without which many fragile ecosystems would die?
The Wurundjeri people certainly didn't have a 4 season calendar; they based their seasons on the local weather conditions, and the behaviour of plants and animals. I've drawn up a (possible/approximate) Wurundjeri calendar above, alongside the traditional Roman seasons, and a seasonal calendar created by researches looking at the climate and ecosystem of the Upper Yarra. Makes for interesting comparison.
Would we be less disconnected from our environment if we had seasons that were more responsive to the local ecosystem? What would happen if we didn't think about the seasons as Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter - but as something like Pre-spring, True Spring, High Summer, Dry Summer (Old man summer), Autumn and Winter?
And if, instead of being fixed to the climatic conditions of far off European landscapes, those six seasons were linked to the markers of actual seasonal changes as they happen here - like summer grasses flowering, the appearance of kangaroo apples or of tadpoles spawning in the Yarra?
(images on right: Chocolate bilby (the local easter bunny), and Christmas on Bondi Beach)
Labels: philosophies + opinions
So how connected are you to your eco-system? Test yourself...
0 comments Posted by Kate McMahon at 11:04 amI've been reading about these bioregional thinking questions – adapted by Bill Devall and George Sessions in their book Deep Ecology. It's an interesting test to do on yourself - I can't answer more than half - which is a bit depressing. I tested Adrian (my partner), and he did quite well actually. Anyway, good luck, let me know how you go...1. Trace the water you drink from precipitation to tap.
2. How many days till the moon is full? (Plus or minus a couple of days.)
3. Describe the soil around your home
4. From what direction do winter storms generally come in your region?
5. Where does your garbage go?
6. How long is the growing season where you live?
7. Name five resident birds and any migratory birds in your area.
8. What primary geological event process influenced the land form where you live?
9. From where you are reading this, point north.
10. Were the stars out last night?
Maybe these questions (and the answers) could be turned into a billboard, or artwork in our neighbourhood.
Labels: books and theory, philosophies + opinions
When I started writing this blog I was planning to focus on small interventions on a scale just slightly larger than a single household. I wanted to look at the possibility of getting together with the people next door and sharing resources; like for example having a solar hot water system which is shared between five houses, or organising an organic food buying co-op, or maybe a car club.
What I've discovered is that a lot of the sustainability improvements which would be most effective as a way of reducing our carbon emissions or water usage either work on the scale of the individual house - or else on the scale of a neighbourhood (150-250 houses).
Because small decentralised systems tend to have a smaller ecological 'footprint', are more efficient and just generally more sustainable than large scale centrally organised systems, it makes sense to start thinking about providing as much of our energy, food, water and social/cultural resources locally.
But how do we make that work? How can we organise ourselves on a neighborhood scale to enable the implementation of local sustainable systems?
I'm trying to think of some useful models. Here in Melbourne I can't think of many organisations which work on that scale: Our local government functions on a much larger scale - the City of Yarra, our local council, manages something like the equivalent of more than 100 neighbourhoods. Too big.
Maybe a local school is a useful model? A lot of schools would have 200 or more families enrolled, and they would be managed locally by a school board with some key decisions or design processes being carried out on a regional or state level.
Come to think of it - the toy library we go to in Clifton Hill would have 200 or so families involved. They have one or two full time paid staff hired by the council and these staff manage the library, gather fees and organise the families to volunteer their time two to three times a year.
Perhaps it could work similarly here, council could hire a someone to manage or facilitate local neighbourhood-scale groups. This person could provide advice and some financial support while allowing the impetus, and most of the key decisions to come from the residents. Large scale, expensive or potentially hazardous interventions - like black water treatment, could be handled by council in the same way they would deal with proposals from any developer.
In 1994 our then premier Jeff Kennett merged three local councils (Richmond, Collingwood and Fitzroy) and parts of the City of Melbourne and City of Northcote into the City of Yarra, forming one big mega-council. I believe the idea was to improve efficiency and reduce costs, and maybe increase quality of decision making & outcomes - and I imagine that in some areas it was probably effective in doing so. The downside is that government on this scale makes it difficult for the individual voice to be heard. It becomes difficult for small scale neighborhood lead interventions to be handled effectively. And the anonymity and professionalising of local government on a larger scale tends to discourage citizen participation.
I don't know how many people lived in the old City of Collingwood, but there are almost 70 000 people living in the City of Yarra now. Thats almost ten times larger than Christopher Alexander's ideal of the 'Community of 7000'. And ten times larger than Jefferson's 'ward republics'.
What we need is new models to enable us to control our energy, our water, our waste and other resources on a neighbourhood scale. But what are they? Anyone have any ideas?
Labels: community + participation
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."
from blurb on Dave Pollard's book 'The Sweet Spot'
Labels: good blogs, quotes
So they've been talking about creating a temporary beach on the banks of the Yarra for summer... the idea is to dump a bit of sand, supply deck chairs and beach umbrella's and perhaps a couple of ice cream carts.
Apparently it's inspired by the Paris Plage - an annual artificial beach along the Seine, complete with palm trees. I've never seen the Paris Plage, but I have been to Blijburg beach outside Amsterdam, which is fantastic. Blijburg is a temporary artificial beach located on a housing development site on IJburg, (the new islands in the east of Amsterdam). Eventually it will all be high density housing - but in the meantime it's a beach with a little bar and restaurant. It's not flash - all very make-do-provisional-aesthetic... but that just makes it even more fun. And Amsterdam has three other urban beaches as well - four if you count the 'beach' on the top of the Nemo building.The great thing about sandy beaches is that they're 'smooth' as Deleuze would say; they're not programmed, the water and people's footprints rewrite them continually - they're open spaces, free spaces - spaces for play - places of becoming. Cities are the opposite, they're highly 'striated' spaces, clearly programmed, places for work, defined places, known spaces. Which is what I like about the idea of a beach in the CBD - it's exciting because it would crash together two completely different types of space - a collision which can't help but change the way we experience the city.
But from the articles I've read about our proposed urban beach - people seem to be canning it, which is a bit of a shame I reckon.
"There are so many beaches in close proximity to the CBD that the concept of an artificial beach seems frivolous and wasteful of resources."
What do you think? I've set up a poll so that we can all vote (on the top right of the page). I've read a few different arguments against the beach so far...
Argument 1: We already have perfectly good beaches close to the city including Port Melbourne & St Kilda etc. so a 'fake' beach in the CBD would just be a white elephant.
Well - I grew up in Wollongong, and so it's hard for me to get too excited about Melbourne's bayside beaches at the best of times. To me a 'real' beach has to have surf. Maybe this prejudice is making me miss the point - but I reckon a city beach is just as useful as a Bayside one. After all, a beach in the CBD will do a totally different job to a beach on the coast; no-one is going to go to visit the beach on the Yarra for a 'day at the beach', but they will go there during their lunch hour, or for an brief relaxation during a full-on day of Christmas shopping - or as a chance to allow the kids to let off a bit of steam.
And on those hot summers nights it will be fantastic, people can hang out between festival events, or before a big night out clubbing in the city.
Argument 2: Other cities with Urban Beaches are all landlocked, and that's why their beaches are successful.
See above - I don't think the beaches on the Bay would 'compete' with the city beach. A city beach is just a way of extending Melbourne's beach culture to the city. Mixin' it up a bit. It's about making the city more exciting, more varied.
It's probably a good way of promoting Melbourne's coastal attractions to visitors too. When people think of Sydney - they automatically think of Bondi and golden beaches, but I don't think they do the same for Melbourne. Being from NSW, I certainly never associated Melbourne with 'beach' before I came here.
Argument 3: Beaches don't 'belong' beside rivers - they should only be found by the bay or the sea. A 'faux foreshore' would ruin the 'natural beauty' of the river as it is.
Well, rivers quite often have little beaches. In Australia it's certainly much more natural to find a sandy bank along a river's edge than mounds of green grass planted with English Elm trees, let alone hard bluestone paving. In fact a fake beach won't be any more faux than any other element of the landscape along the city's river edge.
Argument 4: To make a beach you have to take away something that's already there.
That's probably the most convincing argument for not having a beach that I've heard. I can't think of any place along the river in the CBD that 'needs' a beach. I love the rivers edge just the way it is.
The only thing I would say is that the beach would be temporary - so it's really more like putting out a slip n' slide on your front lawn in summer than digging it up and installing a swimming pool. We wouldn't be losing anything for good, just having a temporary change of decor.
Argument 5: It's too expensive, and a waste of money
Well that's out of my league. I have no idea how much it will cost, or what the budget for providing that kind of amenity is. But is it a waste of money? If you see the city-beach as an attempt at an imitation of the 'real thing' then of course it's bound fail, and so yes it's got to be a waste of money. But if you see the beach as an attempt to create a different kind of city space - as some kind of freer more relaxed urban square, then maybe it's not.
and finally...
Argument 6: People can't swim in the Yarra, so why have a beach?
There's two responses to this - the first is that people can't swim in the Seine either - it doesn't have to be about swimming, it's about lounging, building sand castles and wearing as little as possible (and all in your lunch break).
The second response is the only argument I've heard in the public debate so far which is in favour the Yarra beach concept - and it's my favourite argument because it brings the idea of a beach back to what this blog is about...
Apparently the Yarra Riverkeeper Association has welcomed the idea of a beach precisely because we can't swim in the Yarra. The beach, they argue, will bring Melbournians to the water's edge in a new way and in doing so increase their awareness of the health of the waterways. They'll be on the beach, they'll think about how nice it would be to be able to take a dip, and that will increase the pressure on improving the way we manage pollution and stormwater along our river.
So, what do you think? A city beach ... Stupid? Possibly good, but risky? Or just straight up fantastic?
Labels: eco news
It's a rainy Sunday morning and it's pouring down outside as I write this - everything is getting a really good soaking.
This is great news for our gardens and street trees - but not so good for the poor old Yarra River. Tomorrow, when Yarra Watch measure the contamination in the river, they'll find higher levels of toxins and bacteria than before the rain.
Everyone knows that the Yarra is sick, we've all heard about the kayakers with leptospirosis and the dead eels, but why? No doubt part of the problem is fertilizers and animal poo from farms in the Upper Yarra, or more disturbingly; businesses like Amcor Packaging in Abbotsford who illegally wash toxins into the river, but I can't just blame other people for the problem. The sad fact is that a large part of the pollution is from neighbourhoods like ours, on nice wet days like today.As I write this, all that rainwater is running over the road, and the footpaths, and down the gutter to the stormwater pits. On the way the rainwater is picking up pollutants from the surface - including petrochemicals, oils, rubbish, dog poo, detergents and organic matter, which are washed into the drains by the water. By this afternoon, all of that water and pollution is going to end up in the Yarra River. (For a more comprehensive listof pollutants and their effects click here).
So what can we do? On an individual level - not a hell of a lot. We can pick up litter, wash the car in a carwash, and report anyone putting anything nasty where it will end up in the drains. As a neighbourhood however, we can do a lot.
Basically, the best thing we can do is retain and use as much of the water here in our neighbourhood as possible, and then make sure the water that ends up in the stormwater system is clean before it gets to the Yarra.
I've got a couple of ideas on how we could apply some water sensitive urban design measure here in our neighbourhood, I'll draw them up and post them shortly.
The photo above left is one of the stormwater pits in our neighbourhood, taken today during a brief hiatus in the rainfall. Click image to see larger
Labels: stormwater, water
I've been looking at an interesting blog called GreenRenters...
They say they're trying to fill a gap in the 'conversation' about sustainable living - because most information and marketing is addressed at homeowners, who are able to make structural changes to their property, and are less transient in their address.
As renters ourselves I can certainly relate. As energy prices rise it will be interesting to see if government start to mandate the provision of things like insulation and draft proofing in rental houses. Because there's no doubt that living in a badly designed/fitted home can cost you a packet in energy each quarter.
GreenRenters has got some nice vegetable recipes too, they even look delicious enough to maybe convert a meat lover like me...
Labels: good blogs
I've been writing a post on possible strategies for dealing with stormwater in our neighbourhood (inspired by the wet wet day we've had today). But I thought I might post a quick roundup on the weeks water news...
Water costs tipped to more than double
Because of the cost of new infrastructure, and the fact that the water supplies are at 30.6%, down about 5% from this time last year. So maybe, contrary to my earlier suggestion, an investment in water infrastructure could end up paying for itself afterall...
and...
Bizarre solutions to water crisis
Apparently someone in the Queenland government said something about shipping water from Japan.
and...
Rainwater tanks could save public $600m
Taxpayers could save big money if all new houses installed tanks and raingardens - apparently a lot of that saving is from reducing the amount of water which enters the stormwater system.
Thanks to snap for putting me onto 'quietrevolution' in the uk. These guys are making a commercial turbine designed for urban areas, where wind speeds are lower and tend to change direction more frequently. Apparently the helix design significantly reduces vibration and noise, which would certainly make them easier to live next to.
There's no doubt this one is elegant as well. And as you can see in the image below - has significantly less visual impact than a traditional wind turbine, and less problems with shadows too I'd imagine.
Still it's 5m tall plus mast, and not cheap - you wont get much change from $90 000, and that doesn't include footings (foundations), although I imagine it does take into account all the sparky work.
Not sure what the payoff period would be for one - of course that would depend on the amount of energy it could generate, which in turn would depend on the specific wind conditions of your site.
I'm not sure how windy our neighbourhood is. Alexander Parade would probably be our best bet for picking up a few gusts, but I imagine we would have to measure the specific location we wanted to use for a period of time before we'd have useful figures on productivity.
The quietrevolution mob are working on smaller and cheaper turbine for residential use - but it's not due to be released until 2009.
Labels: sustainable energy, wind power



.jpg)








