While there has been plenty of debate in the media about town planning in general in the ACT, I have not seen much coverage given to the standard of design and appropriate development density in the city.
I am not the only town planner who questions the merits of such recent developments as the very boring and ugly medium-density housing off Battye St in Bruce or the design and appearance of the new accommodation units at Australian National University.
And what do people think about the scale of the massive unit development next to Glebe Park in the city or the new housing estates in Gungahlin?
Neither should we forget the magnificent Gungahlin Drive Extension when discussing attractive urban design! Is this the type of development which the planning authorities or Government in the ACT could be proud to promote as being worthy for a capital?
Recently Minister for Planning Andrew Barr was lauding the Government's planning achievements at a Property Council function, and admonishing the Opposition's planning policies.
While it is a healthy economic sign to see new buildings, both commercial and residential, it is not satisfactory to approve developments which are as unattractive or out of scale with the surrounding development as these.
Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne have more than enough residential eyesores for this country without the national capital's help.
Colin Lyons, Weetangera
A heap of bull
For a bloke who makes so much of his country upbringing, Jack Waterford again demonstrates (Times2,October 2, p2) just how little he knows of farmed animals. It's not the introduced ruminants' farts; it's their methane-rich burps that do the damage.
More importantly, Waterford plays around with a lot of meaningless numbers (if only that 0.8mm layer of methane would stay on the ground it's the fact that it doesn't that causes the problem) before he quotes the vital one emissions from cattle and sheep ''amounts to 11 per cent of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions''.
He then disregards that very meaningful number as ''a sacrifice the planet may have to bear'' on the basis that he likes his completely unnecessary and self-indulgent meat.
I'm sure that if I told the rest of water-scarce Canberra to ''go suck'' because I love my green lawn and 20-minute showers, I'd be rightly reprimanded.
And as I see it, ''ruminant haters'' are the natural enemies of vegetarians not fellow travellers.
Surely you need to hate ruminants in order to cause them to be de-horned, castrated then slaughtered just for the taste of their flesh. Waterford's arrogant, ignorant and selfish lead does nothing to help the planet.
Mike O'Shaughnessy, Spence
The vegan diet, as described by Paul MacInnes (''Love made me do it: a vegan tale'', Food and Wine, October 1, p4) sounds much like the original diet given to mankind by their Creator.
''Behold,'' God said, ''I give you every seed-bearing plant upon the face of all the Earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.'' (Genesis 1:29 NIV).
In other words, grains, nuts and fruit.
According to MacInnes, it works ''it keeps me regular ... when I eat vegan food I feel content but never bloated.''
The reason: ''Vegan food tends to have less fat''.
Evelyn Bean, Ainslie Tanks reduce flow
John Bromhead's sensible letter (September 22) on the woolly-headed policies and practices of our Government on water tanks is to be applauded.
While not mentioned by Bromhead, the over-arching principle that our authorities have failed to grasp is that in Canberra, unlike in Sydney and other coastal cities, water that goes down drains or the sewer is not wasted.
This water goes to maintain water levels in our ornamental lakes and, either directly or through the sewage treatment plant, adds to environmental flows in the Murrumbidgee River.
Thus, domestic water tanks do not save water but merely divert it from valid public use to private use.
The environmental cost of installing and operating water tanks should, therefore, be measured against this.
Alan Robertson, Aranda
Email a friend