ON LINE

opinion

- Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Victoria’s bushfires: time to reflect new urban strategies

By Beatriz Maturana

Posted Friday, 27 March 2009

Although it is believed that some of the bushfires that affected the State of Victoria may be the work ofarsonists, this was a natural disaster in the sense that it was triggered by an dreadful combination of climaticconditions such as a very dry season, thick and dry native forest in country Victoria and around Melbourne’speriphery, strong winds and an unprecedented heat of up to 48C.As these harsh climate conditions with its disastrous consequences become more frequent, Australianauthorities and politicians are now quick to name climate change as a contributing factor. In view of a futureincreasingly exposed to a harsher climate, calls for the review of emergency laws, the upgrading of fireevacuation plans and building regulations are been considered. However, are these expedient responsesdealing with the complex issue of suburban and outer suburban living?While a handful of scientists show caution in declaring that this disaster is due to climate change, others, likeKevin Hennessy from the CSIRO (

The Sydney Morning Herald

, February 9, 2009), assert that:

There does seem to be a human element to bushfire risk. In terms of human contribution it is clear that most of the global warming since about 1950 is likely due to increases in greenhouse gases. Higher temperatures clearly increase the risk of bushfires.

Reconstructing the same, “brick by brick”

Australia has abundant land and for the 200 years of colonisation settlers have had no need to compromise- not on the size of their houses and land, nor in terms of privacy, material costs or the cost of services suchas transport and schools. This uncompromising attitude is part of an entrenched cultural trend that definesour suburbs, outer suburbs and suburbs within rural habitats, with its remarkable nature corridors and bush.While these conditions offer some fine aspects which define the Australian way of life, it also precludesother modes of living, particularly those associated to sharing resources, social equity, accessibility, urbanvitality and the chances of achieving environmental sustainability. One example of this is car dependencywith all its detrimental effects. Larger pieces of land in the outer suburbs or “suburbs in the bush” are moreaffordable.As George Megalogenis notes in

The Australian

(February 14), the population in the worst affected areaslived in an extension of “Mortgageville: communities with more children, and parents with less education,than the national average”. This is an urban periphery foreign to the city skyline, forgotten by the urbanprofessions and their educational institutions. For instance, how often do architectural design studios focustheir explorations on the needs of these populations?Responses as to what should be done to rebuild the destroyed houses and townships vary. While it isperhaps too soon to reflect on how and why this disaster took on such devastating force, reflection

needed. Comments focusing on at least two different dimensions of the problem emerge. Overall, onecentres on the upgrading individual structures through better technology and regulations, while the otherpoints at planning issues by questioning the wisdom of reconstructing in the same manner.For example, Victorian Premier John Brumby recommends that building codes need revision. ArchitectLindsay Johnston discusses fire resistant houses and the construction of underground bunkers in areasprone to bushfires, while also adding urban sprawl exacerbates the danger for these communities.Similarly, scientists such as Professor Andy Pitman suggests that fireproof underground shelters anddifferent building regulations for houses near bush areas should be considered, simultaneously questioningthe suitability of rebuilding in the affected areas (

The Age

, February 10). Dr. Nichols on the other hand warnsof the “real chance that some communities may never be rebuilt”, while also noting that “the devastation in

Australia has abundant land and for the 200 years of colonisation settler...http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/print.asp?article=87071 of 327/03/2009 9:53 A

Victoria presents a sombre opportunity” (

The Age

, February 11).It is that

sombre

opportunity that I want to discuss. An opportunity that offers the chance to put in practicewhat our urban professions, ecologists, educators and members of the general public have been discussingfor years. The understanding that devastation brought on by climate change cannot be overcome with yetmore technology that reinforces the mindset that generated it. That perhaps it is time to think of collectiverather than individual solutions to our predicaments.Promises such as “Together we will rebuild each of these communities - brick by brick, school by school,community hall by community hall” (Kevin Rudd,

The Age

, February 11), may offer some neededconsolation to the victims and hope that their lives might one day return to some normality. However, in viewof the facts it is pertinent to question what should be reconstructed in the context of Australian culture,ecology, climate change and the long term well-being of those affected today.

A collection of scattered buildings don’t make a town

What we witnessed in the last month were heroic and tragic personal efforts to save the family house.Among those, one case comes to mind, where a group of people in Flowerdale survived thanks to a call forthe nearby residents to stay in one building, a pub, while concentrating all efforts on saving that one building:a notion of collective that emerged out of despair.When you fly across Europe what you will see is a very different urban, suburban and rural morphology tothat of Australia. The European landscape is pierced by circles and lines, where the circles are the towns orvillages, the communities and the lines the roads or connectors. In Australia, lines connecting sparselylocated properties crisscross the earth. Sporadic grouping of buildings such as the post-office, pub,supermarket, sometimes a school and bank, indicate something similar to a centre - but without a centre. InAustralia these have been referred by some as “townships”.What is also peculiar to Australia is that these linear “centres” have very few or no residential buildingswhatsoever. While in this morphology a relative sense of community can exist, this is greatly diminished bydistance, a resulting car dependency and the placing and function of buildings.If we superimpose the analogy of the pub in Flowerdale, to a slightly more densely populated town or village,in which people also have their residences, it would not be too far fetched to think that this imaginaryinhabited town could be more easily protected than a road with spread out buildings and even morescattered houses placed within large to very large properties. In this late example, not only the efforts ofresidents but also those of emergency services are broken up and weakened. I cannot but to agree withNichols (in "Bushfire Tragedy Rewrites Rules for Architects") when he says:

I'd like to think at the end of the day that governments recognise that keeping a community together may well be worth the many millions of dollars it might cost to bring that about.

The morphology of our cities, suburbs and satellite suburbs within rural land follow a planning trend. Rampanturban sprawl and its detrimental effects are well documented. Whether different planning regulations canassist to prevent tragedies such as the one we just witnessed is worth investigating. But planning the futureof suburbs, wherever these are located, cannot continue being the result of rushed decisions by politicians,or a privilege reserved to one set of professionals.Suggestions that focus on building regulations, or on more technology (whether sustainable or not), are partof micro-solutions. These solutions should not obscure or replace the need for a macro-scale debate andrevision. It is at the planning and urban levels where community and expert discussion could take place,where questions about what is possible and wise and how should we shape urban, suburban and suburbs inrural communities can be addressed. This is what I would call the sombre opportunity that can and needs tobe grasped. This is a collective and too often discounted approach to solving a problem.Focusing on an armoured building or more disaster prepared individuals is one step in the same olddirection - the individual object (building) and the person who does not compromise. Nor are these answersaffordable to the social demography described by Megalogenis. These solutions dismiss what we have justlearnt through this experience, that together with the destruction of lives and houses, the ecology, foodproduction, water, power supply, public health and communication are also threatened.

Australia has abundant land and for the 200 years of colonisation settler...http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/print.asp?article=87072 of 327/03/2009 9:53 A