Under-utilised Land - Let's Use That!
A verge, a park, nobody much uses it, so why shouldn't we? What does under-utilised mean anyway? What is sufficiently utilised? (utilized for my American readers)
Two debates about the use of public land are dividing communities in Brisbane. Both started with a group wanting to use public land for their cause.
The first is the plan to build an Olympic Stadium on heritage-listed public land with fierce opposition from the Save Victoria Park campaign; the second is outrage at the Brisbane City Council’s refusal to give permission to put community batteries in parks. (news story: Brisbane city council blocks plans for fridge-sized community batteries due to loss of green space)
There is an overlap between supporters of the Save Victoria Park campaign and the critics of the Council’s refusal to permit the installation of the batteries in parks. From their viewpoint, the Lord Mayor’s support for the stadium and the Council refusing permission for the batteries are both inconsistent with Council claims to green credentials.
Watch the Language
The comments people make tell you a lot more than banal official announcements and cautious professional responses.
The recent announcement that the Stadium would be built in Victoria Park brought out off-hand comments from supporters about the land currently being “under-utilised”, only used by a few “NIMBYs” to walk their dogs. This displays a disregard or even blindness to all the everyday things that nature is doing that have a deeper and wider benefit to the entire city: biodiversity, habitat, shade, cooling, cleaning the air, rainwater management, etc.
Downplaying the impact with assurances that they aren’t taking all the greenspace, there’ll still be some left for the locals to walk their dogs, ignores the scale and urgent need to increase tree canopy and biodiversity in our city. It’s a narrow but common point of view in a society with a significant disconnect from nature.
Their view of legacy seems to be the things we build: stadiums, infrastructure, things to impress the visitors. “The Olympics” is the ultimate justification for overriding opposing views.
Their opponents from the Save Victoria Park is a surprisingly diverse group. They point out many reasons why the park should be protected and the original plan to regenerate the parklands to be continued. Nobody believes the Olympic takeover will be limited to this proposal. They too talk about legacy, but it is a less tangible legacy that involves history, nature, and community.
There are claims and counterclaims; we’re right and you’re wrong; our use of this land is more important than yours. It’s a stalemate, off to the courts to continue the adversarial battle.
Nobody is looking for collaborative discussions from which a more innovative solution could emerge. Nobody is asking what the world will be like in 2032? Or whether the Olympics may need to change to fit that world.
Like the people who want a stadium, the proponents of the community batteries need a site. They see parks as an obvious and available space for their batteries. The need for a transition to renewable energy is their justification for dismissing opposing views.
The reported comment in that news story, from the BCC Civic Cabinet Chair for Environment, Parks and Sustainability, that the Council does not support “plonking giant batteries in public parks” has been framed as the Council refusing to allow community batteries, ignoring the fact that the Council has approved batteries in road reserves, but not parks.
Manage Your Conversations Carefully
The conversations I am seeing around the batteries and Victoria Park are very similar to those surrounding verge garden disputes. Hostility snowballs, especially when fed by keyboard warriors and partisan campaigns, and everyone is stuck in their opposing views. In the end, the most powerful party will determine what happens but nobody really wins and wounds never heal.
The habits of open-minded conversations with diverse viewpoints, finding a common shared purpose, and coming up with collaborative solutions, is something that you can learn in group verge projects. From there, you can use the skills and insights for all sorts of contentious issues to find better solutions.
Understanding The Space Matters
Who owns this land, and what is affected by what I do? Who has responsibility for ongoing maintenance and insurance? Who deals with things when something goes wrong? How does it fit within the larger context of the street and city?
Read more about this at Understanding The Space.
A road reserve, which includes the verges, is a very contested space, but it also provides access to maintenance vehicles and emergency services. I can see why having the batteries on road reserves could avoid a lot of logistical issues compared to having them in a park - much like all the other power and communication boxes in our streets.
However, putting your battery on the road reserve means working with other users and uses of the space, and affects the way that residents see their streets. Is plonking the batteries in the park a way for local residents to have their batteries while keeping them well out of sight?
Look for the Valid Reasons Behind the Restrictions
This is where guerrilla gardening, railing against council guidelines without thinking about what’s behind them and why they might be justified, fails.
If there are restrictions you don’t like, or people disagree with your proposal, it doesn’t mean that one of you is right and the other wrong. It means that you need to work harder to find a better solution.
What happens if something goes wrong? While the idea of a battery might seem to take little greenspace, especially if you put it on a pole, how does access to the space for installation, maintenance, and replacement work? How do you reduce risk if there was a fire?
If you are the proponent, don’t expect other people to find your solutions for you. Engage positively with other views, ask the sort of questions that open up the conversation, and you might come up with a better collaborative solution than you could do alone.
More reading
Affirmative Inquiry to find a common purpose and better solutions
Who are the villians in your stories?
Where are your conversations taking you?
Regen Brisbane
This article was inspired by a conversation at
. If you want to talk more about Victoria Park or the community battery issue, you can join in there.Disclosure: I don’t support the plonking of batteries in parks and I don’t support the plonking of a stadium in Victoria Park. I think both need open and imaginative conversations with more diverse and creative groups to find better answers. What do you think?
I love this “If there are restrictions you don’t like, or people disagree with your proposal, it doesn’t mean that one of you is right and the other wrong. It means that you need to work harder to find a better solution.” This sums it up perfectly.
I wish we had the time and space to do this for Victoria Park.
Really interesting to draw the parallel between these two debates. It highlights how “under-utilised” is so often code for “not commercially productive,” revealing a very commercialised lens on public space. Agree we need for more open, creative, and collaborative conversations about how we define value and legacy in our city. I look forward to more of those types of discussions at Regen Brisbane and ACF Northside