|
|
|
|
|
by SulphurCrested
841 days ago
|
|
The article, especially in its second half, confuses the City of Melbourne municipality with the city of Melbourne. The former is the central business district and surrounding area, the one with 33,000 open air car parks of which the local academic they interviewed appears to be proposing 11,000 be replaced by greenery. It is a nice thought, but the City of Melbourne (think Westminster or City of London in a London context) is notoriously reliant on revenue from those car parks and isn’t about kill that goose yet. Their policy [0] is to “support the conversion of car parking spaces to be used for another function where there is a strategic need to do so” - and the list of functions doesn’t include greenery for its own sake. In fairness, there are already a lot of parks within the municipality. The latter is the metro area of 5 million people 100km across, and most of it has plenty of green space. For example, most residential streets have a wide grassed verge with street trees. There is definitely a problem with gardens disappearing under apartments and McMansions, but it’s mostly not car parking that’s driving habitat loss. [0] https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/par... |
|