Paper
Multiple Suburban Publics: Rethinking Community Opposition to Consolidation in Sydney
KRISTIAN RUMING,
DONNA HOUSTON,
MARCO AMATI,
Corresponding Author
KRISTIAN RUMING
Department of Environment and Geography, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia.
Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorDONNA HOUSTON
Department of Environment and Geography, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia.
Search for more papers by this authorMARCO AMATI
Department of Environment and Geography, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia.
Search for more papers by this authorKRISTIAN RUMING,
DONNA HOUSTON,
MARCO AMATI,
Corresponding Author
KRISTIAN RUMING
Department of Environment and Geography, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia.
Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorDONNA HOUSTON
Department of Environment and Geography, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia.
Search for more papers by this authorMARCO AMATI
Department of Environment and Geography, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia.
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
Since the late 1980s urban consolidation has become the dominant strategic planning paradigm across Australian cities; however, sites of densification are increasingly becoming sites of community resistance and conflict. In the context of the Sydney Metropolitan Strategy, this paper explores Ku-ring-gai in Sydney's northern suburbs as a site of community resistance centred on opposition to urban consolidation. Moving beyond more traditional constructions of community resistance as a form of NIMBYism, we present here a typology of community resistance groups and explore the complex relationships between these groups, which are used to challenge development. In addition we draw on understanding of urban publics to explore the ways in which these groups attempt to engage and act on behalf of a diverse set of publics operating across scales.
REFERENCES
- Australian Institute of Architects (AIA), 2008: Letter to Kristina Keneally, Minister for Planning, regarding Ku-ring-gai Town Centre Draft LEP, 28 October.
- Bunker, R. and Searle, G., 2009: Theory and practice in metropolitan strategy: situating recent Australian planning. Urban Policy and Research 27, 101–116.
- Burningham, K., 2000: Using the language of NIMBY: a topic for research, not an activity for researchers. Local Environment 5, 55–67.
- Curby, P. and Macleod, V., 2006: Under the Canopy: A Centenary History of Ku-ring-gai Council. Ku-ring-gai Council, Sydney.
- Dear, M., 1992: Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. Journal of the American Planning Association 58, 288–300.
- Devine-Wright, P., 2009: Rethinking NIMBYism: the role of place attachment and place identity in explaining place-protective action. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 19, 426–441.
-
Dovey, K.,
Woodcock, I. and
Wood, S., 2009: Understanding neighbourhood character the case of Camberwell.
Australian Planner
46, 32–39.
10.1080/07293682.2009.10753406 Google Scholar
- Duncan, J., 1992: Elite landscapes as cultural (re)productions: the case of Shaunessy Heights. In K. Andersen and F. Gale (eds) Inventing Places: Studies in Cultural Geography. Longman Cheshire, Melbourne, 37–51.
- Ellis, G., 2004: Discourses of objection: towards an understanding of third-party rights in planning. Environment and Planning A 36, 1549–1570.
-
Fischer, F., 2000: Citizens, Experts and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge. Duke University Press, Durham and London.
10.1215/9780822380283 Google Scholar
- Forster, C., 2006: The challenge of change: Australian cities and urban planning in the new millennium. Geographical Research 44, 173–182.
- Friends of Ku-ring-gai Environment (FOKE), 2008: A Photographic Record of Sites and Streetscapes in Ku-ring-gai, Impacted by Leps 194/200/202/204/207 Residential Development Strategy Stage 1. FOKE, Sydney.
-
Gibson, T.A., 2005: NIMBY and the civic good.
City and Community
4, 381–401.
10.1111/j.1540-6040.2005.00144.x Google Scholar
- Hubbard, P., 2005: Accommodating otherness: anti-asylum centre and the maintenance of the white privilege. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 30, 52–65.
- Huxley, M., 2002: This Suburb Is of Value to the Whole of Melbourne. Institute for Social Research, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne.
-
Iveson, K., 2007: Publics and the City. Blackwell, Oxford.
10.1002/9780470761748 Google Scholar
- Kelly, T., 2010: Media Release: Approved Town Centres LEP in line with Ku-ring-gai dwelling targets. NSW Minister for Planning, 25 May.
- Kenworthy, J., 2006: The eco-city: ten key transport and planning dimensions for sustainable city development. Environment and Urbanization 18, 67–85.
- Ku-ring-gai Council, 2010: Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan (Town Centres) 2010. Ku-ring-gai Council, Sydney.
- Ku-ring-gai Preservation Trust (KPT), 2010: Newsletter Issue 24. KPT, Sydney.
- Larkman, P.J., 2004: Conserving the suburb: mechanisms, tensions and results. In K. Stanilov and B.C. Scheer (eds) Suburban Form: An International Perspective. Routledge, New York, 241–262.
- Livingstone, M., Bailey, N. and Kearns, A., 2008: People's Attachment to Place: The Influence of Neighbourhood Deprivation. Chartered Institute for Housing, Coventry.
- Marr, D., 2009: Friendless and furious: Ku-ring-gai fights for life. Sydney Morning Herald, 19 September, 12.
- McMillan, J., 2008: Public Submission to Kristina Keneally, Minister for Planning, Urban Consolidation in Ku-ring-gai. Prepared for the Lindfield Project Group, October.
- McMillan, J., 2009: Submission on the Draft Ku-ring-gai Development Control Plan (Town Centres) 2009. Prepared for the Lindfield Project Group, September.
- Mercer, D., 2003: The great Australian wind rush and the devaluation of landscape amenity. Australian Geographer 34, 91–121.
- Moore, M. and Tovey, J., 2010: Ku-ring-gai heritage under threat, says National Trust. Sydney Morning Herald, May 27, 14.
- National Trust, 2010: Media Release: Planning for Fear and Confusion in Ku-ring-gai, 26 May.
- NSW Department of Planning (NSWDOP), 2005: City of Cities: A Plan for Sydney's Future. Department of Planning, Sydney.
- NSW Department of Planning (NSWDOP), 2007: Northern Subregion: Draft Subregional Strategy. Department of Planning, Sydney.
- NSW Department of Planning (NSWDOP), 2010: Sydney Towards 2036: Metropolitan Strategy Review. Department of Planning, Sydney.
- Priestley, A., 2009: Thousands turn up to mourn ‘Death of Democracy'. North Shore Times, 27 September, 1.
- Quah, E. and Tan, K.C., 2002: Siting Environmentally Unwanted Facilities: Risks, Trade-offs and Choices. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
-
Randolph, B., 2006: Delivering the compact city in Australia.
Urban Policy and Research
24, 473–490.
10.1080/08111140601035259 Google Scholar
- Randolph, B. and Troy, P., 2008: Attitudes to conservation and water consumption. Environmental Science and Policy 11, 441–455.
- Schively, C., 2007: Understanding the NIMBY and LULU phenomena: reassessing our knowledge base and informing future research. Journal of Planning Literature 21, 255–266.
- Searle, G., 2007: Sydney's Urban Consolidation Experience. URP, Griffith University, Brisbane.
- Searle, G. and Filion, P., 2011: Planning context and urban intensification outcome: Sydney versus Toronto. Urban Studies 48, 1419–1438.
- STEP, 20022010: Newsletter, Issues 112–155. Retrieved: 14 October 2010 from <http://www.step.org.au/>.
- St Ives Progress Association (SIPA), 2010: Submission to the St Ives Village Masterplan, 8 March.
- Watson, A., 2009: Ministerial Planning Panels – Taking the ‘Local’ out of Local Planning. Paper presented at International Cities Town Centres & Communities Society conference, Deakin University, 27–30 October.
- Wolsink, M., 1994: Entanglement of interests and motives: assumptions behind the NIMBY-theory on facility siting. Urban Studies 31, 851–866.
- Wolsink, M., 2000: Wind power and the NIMBY-myth: institutional capacity and the limited significance of public support. Renewable Energy 21, 49–64.
- Wolsink, M., 2006: Invalid theory impedes our understanding: a critique on the persistence of the language of NIMBY. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 31, 85–91.
