Saturday, February 09, 2008

Bat, ball and homeward bound

While I still consider the proposed development for the St Kilda triangle quite inappropriate, I give up. I hate St Kilda anyway. It is not a place for me. Although I am clearly a south side person, I rather like the north side of town where there is no desire to build such huge 'community assets', well yes there is one proposal.

I shall send a complimentary email to the two councillors who voted against the massive development. I shall only deal will my local ward member, who voted in favour, in a cursory and demanding manner. Duplicitous cunt bad person.

Should I happen to be forced to visit the new development, and I have no doubt it will be popular, bringing the outer burbs to the inner burbs, it is not the St Kilda that I liked and remember.

I need to focus back to subsidising my council rates. Parking fees, parking fines, chairs on street costs, rates for such a huge development.

I was on a tram today going around St Kilda Upper Esplanade and I looked and I could see why people are protesting about views.

Later update. I just learnt today that come next election, St Kilda Road and Queens Road will have their own council ward, imaginatively named, Junction Ward. So my local councillor will not be dependant on my vote next election.

Am I feeling impressed by local democracy in action? You can guess.

21 comments:

  1. What is wrong with these people that they have to build the ugliest monstrosities that have no hope in hell of blending into the historic surroundings but stick out like a dead dingo's donger ???

    OT - I hear the Danish Club has been sold and bought by developers to be turned into apartments *sigh*

    ReplyDelete
  2. Planning in Victoria is a joke. I blame Labor.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bad new Jayne.

    Was as bad if not worse under Kennett Reuben.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It all just sucks basically. NOT HAPPY. Bloody hell, not The Danish Club as well...if only anyone in charge had half an ounce of credibility. Bring back black bans I say and bring them back now.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Andrew, you have a very good point there. Still, Kennett is done with and if you ask me, Ted Bailleu sounds more sagacious than Brumby (or maybe I'm being tricked by a political ruse).

    If you ask me, St Kilda is the last place in the inner city where they should expand. If they want to develop the CBD - move them down to Dandenong and make that our own "Parramatta". It's even a plan in the making - but there has been an unfortunate lack of private investment in Dandenong (wouldn't it be great to see a Hilton Hotel there and a few big office blocks).

    ReplyDelete
  6. Fair go, Dandenong is where the bums took refuge when they were forced out of St Kilda. Do you want them invaded again? By bars cafes and TASTEFUL RENOVATION?

    Say Sorry for that!- you well-off hypocrite bastards waffling on about aborigines!

    Give the poor back their slums!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kennett was the King of grievances (in that he gave more Victorians something to complain about than ever before).

    The St Kilda triangle is foul - normally local council rejects these kinds of bids and it goes to the administrative council. Very odd anamoly indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Councillors are arguing that if they rejected it, VCAT would soon approve it, however I have heard some good arguments as to why they ought not and would perhaps be bound to not approve because of breaches of guidelines.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Robert, you stick up for the social climbers who moved to Dandenong?

    ReplyDelete
  10. No useful council would allow that triangle to be anything other than parkland, but people willing to tenant these things are to blame as well. Over here in Footscray the dopey council are actually allowing apa-a-a-artments to be built right on the river bank.
    These blockheads need to be stopped.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This whole dumb city is getting like New York: $1000 to the square inch.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's not an invasion, r.h., it's urban renewal and if you think it's bad for an area, you are sadly misinformed.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm well-informed, I lived there, it's Class-renewel; the real clean-up was to sweep out the poor.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The trouble begins with young professionals who "fall in love" with an area, and bugger the poor already living there; they have to move on. In the mid-eighties there were hundreds of cheap rooms for rent in St Kilda, now there are none. This area was home to the left-behind in society: alcoholics, mental cases, unemployables, homosexuals, street prostitutes, itinerants, and people just down on their luck. This was an entire community of misfits, everyone on their arse, no one looking out of place, and supported by cheap cafes, pubs, and each other. It was run-down, dirty, a place to land and be accepted. You could get a room, no questions asked, just mind your own business. Large old rooming houses were communities of their own, segments of the greater structure, and they were rough, smelly, my golly yes, pissed mattresses and stale booze, but so what. And then it became fashionable, first as a locale for punk rock trendies, whose music needs a slum, but then their Glen Iris audiences -bright young moneyed professionals- "discovered" it, "fell in love" with it, moved in and demanded it all be cleaned up -which meant booting out all the bums, which is easy to do when you make everything too nice for them -and expensive- destroying their cheap pubs, shops, and so on, while also getting their posh mob on the local council for support.

    For the outcasts sheltering there, St Kilda's big danger was it's scenery. The latte set saw it, wanted it, took it.

    Aided by developers, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Rh, I agree with you but we might be older than Sueglossy who wouldn't remember the days when pensioners could rent rooms even if they paid through the nose for them. Are there still rooming houses, Robbert?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Greetings Miss Jahteh, how nice of you to ask, and to address me as Robbert, but you know of course you shall be my Valentine, so there's no need for the old butter-up, (ha ha). I have been issuing rules for life lately, and not getting a loving reception, how surprising, yes well I suppose if I ever did I'd stop doing it; you're on the wrong tram when the rabble agree with you.

    Ah indeed, yes, well I believe the venerable Gatwick is still going, but rents have probably zoomed. All the same, I'm told it's still wine dog, a friend of mine's floosie had a spat with him recently and stormed off to stay there, getting the hard word put on her straight away. She reports it's as bad as ever. The patronage, that is, a very low crowd. Yes, and everything else too. That joint has a stink they'll never get rid of, not even if they demolish the place.
    But never mind, I have a rather misty and romantic memory of the Gatwick. Passing by there one night I paused to watch an old fellow making his way up the dim hall. He was on a walking frame, and with determined plodding he finally reached it, the front door, and just stood there, gazing out at the rain.

    Romance, if you please, prompted me to speculate what was in his mind. All those yesterdays.

    If you please.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Well argued Robert, but you can't have an el cheapo enclave surrounded by expensive areas. There is actually quite a bit of public housing in the area.

    ReplyDelete
  18. R.H, such "enclaves" you speak of are a bastion for drugs, crime and abuse and neglect in general. By gentrifying an area, the problems won't go away - but will intensify otherwise. They become ghettos and the social issues become entrenched.
    Whilst I accept that housing is no longer affordable for many people - you can't blame gentrification for this. You can, however, blame an overheated economy and some serious myopic planning by the authorities. Gentrification also reduces poverty, cuts crime and removes an ugly blight on the city landscape.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The tangible way to ameliorate such "misfits'" plight is through more intervention, mental health support and decriminalization of drugs. The problem in the first place should be reduced - not ignored and labelled "bohemian" or whatever other misleading euphemism people have. If an area needs improvement, it should get improvement. Simple.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Abos were an ugly blight on the landscape when colonisers landed here, so can you see any difference between invading and kicking natives from their land to establish your own lifestyle on it and what's been done in places like St Kilda? What's the difference? Habitants have been squeezed out in both cases, forcibly.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The Grey Street hill area was indeed an el cheapo dive between Albert Park and St Kilda proper. But you have just no idea of the huge numbers living in cheap digs around there. I'm not saying skid row is good, but is it okay for a well-off crowd to just come and turf everyone else out?

    ReplyDelete

Whenever I wish I was young again, I am sobered by memories of algebra.