..be
burying thirty-five of our citizens per week. It would attract some comment
in Melbourne as the trains would effectively stop running. But I suspect that
the trains in Mumbai cannot afford to stop running more than momentarily given
that seven million people use the suburban rail system on a daily basis. Naturally
on the sub-continent they are desperately trying to do something about the death
rate, but are handicapped by people making holes in the new barrier walls to
get to their favourite shortcuts.
Not so long ago I was talking to an accountant from an IT company with the curious
name of Jamcracker, which is based in Mumbai, who had decided to move to Melbourne.
It was a Friday lunch hour in Collins Street, the veritable heart of this thriving
metropolis and I asked him what was the most uncomfortable aspect of the world’s
sixth most liveable city. Judiciously ignoring the opportunity to lead with
‘casual racism’ he observed it was the fact that the streets were
so empty.
It is, of course, all relative. I arrived in Melbourne more than four hundred
moons ago from the then more vertical city of Christchurch, a smallish agricultural
centre with a population less than quarter of a million of fine British expatriate
shopkeepers, unlanded gentry and deviated septa. In those days the joke about
sheep outnumbering the people was actually true. I found the number of people
in Melbourne almost traumatising by comparison with the vast empty echoing spaces
of Christchurch. I developed Enochlophobia of the supermarket variety.
Melbourne’s population density is around one thousand five hundred persons
per square kilometre; that of Mumbai between twenty and thirty thousand. But
if eighty per cent of the world’s population will soon live in cities,
it might be time to think that if they had the same population density of Melbourne
there would be no arable land left to feed the prospective nine billion or more
projected inhabitants of the earth. On the other hand, if Melbourne had the
urban density of Mumbai we could all live in Toorak and South Yarra. That’s
what living cheek by jowl and in the odd slum can do for you.
We should be fairly clear how Melbourne, and probably all other Australian metropolises,
manage town planning. After a somewhat cursory investigation, in other words
relying entirely on my own prejudices, I decided on two words; Greed and Sloth
which you may identify as the two least interesting of the seven deadly sins,
(he said both apathetically and vaingloriously).
The average Australian property developer, relying as he does on an innate feeling
for the easy dollar, has come to realise that more and more people are coming
to the city. He buys land on the outskirts of the conurbation. Probably already
good market gardening area - perhaps even zoned ‘Green Wedge’ or
mixed agricultural. Being a model citizen and ever mindful of the needs of his
fellow man he then, in a fit of civic mindedness, secures his election to the
local shire or council and has the land zoned ‘Residential’.
The State government, of any convenient purchasable colour, notices that this
is a new and exciting development replete with yet to be built parks, supermarkets
and fire stations and springs immediately into action to provide the necessary
infrastructure.
'Springs into action' might be a slight exaggeration. Maybe 'staring into space
twiddling its thumbs whilst suburbs spring up like rashes around the bottom
of a baby whose nappy hasn’t been changed for three weeks'.
Of course, this is how it looks to an untrained observer who sees only the unimportant
things like commuters queuing twenty minutes at the freeway exit to get to and
from their suburb every morning or evening; bus services cancelled because the
traffic is so dense that keeping to a the timetable is a complete fantasy; or
trains so packed that after the first three stops nobody can get on.
The most likeable places that I have visited have generally been the result
of slow and organic accretion of a populace and buildings over time, an obvious
example being Italian hill towns that grace places like Tuscany. However, that
such a process is still possible in our times is a romantic fallacy in this
age of near geometric population growth - it might be thought that the slums
of Mumbai are just the modern extension of organic growth writ large, but you
really wouldn’t want to live there.
Large scale planned socially engineered housing, as exampled in the less fortunate
banlieues of Paris such as Clichy-sous-Bois, hasn’t worked as they become
high rise ghettos with a self- reinforcing ethos of failure characterised by
high unemployment and violent crime. The grandiloquent social architecture of
Le Corbusier has not worked particularly well either although Chandigarh, a
smallish Indian government town, may be the exception. Buildings may be machines,
but people are not.
Large scale governmental city planning as seen in Canberra or Brasilia seems
to produce nice buildings in a sterile environment accompanied by a high suicide
rate, (the only authentic personal statement left for public servants to do),
and no productive industry. It is interesting that the only new completely planned
cities in the world seem to be national capitals. Ultimate power can still lead
to erectile malfunction on a large scale.
So what to do – even here in God’s forgotten country?
As voluntary sterilisation of everybody with an IQ of less than one hundred
is unlikely to work, I am proposing a few simple steps.
No Australian city can get any bigger; in fact must shrink in area by a minimum
5% per decade and that shrinkage should be equalled by a similar amount of newly
created park land within the existing boundaries. Therefore no more arable land
can be covered by MacMansions and other brick excreta. All hobby farms are to
be banned as well - that is nothing under 130 hectares is eligible for tax concessions.
All politicians and public servants must travel by public transport.
But I am proposing that to get size down and community involvement up that we
use the caravan park as a model. Therefore nobody can reside on more than one
hundred square metres of land; that is a ten by ten metre square of at least
partial greenery.
I’ve seen that caravans and their annexes seem to be able to hold a reasonable
size family in delightful intimacy. The option remains whether people choose
to share ablution facilities as I know that the more circumspect find descending
on an already warm toilet seat somewhat discombobulating.
So if we give over half of every square kilometre to roads, parks and shared
facilities I think that we can get the population density up to a respectable
twelve thousand per square kilometre. To increase the density more – for
example to reflect the value of land as it approaches the urban centre - we
can stack them on top of each other in vertical caravan parks. They might just
resemble apartment buildings.
Caravan parks seem to work over the Christmas period. This way we can have Christmas
all year in a city one eighth the current size.