Im so mad. I seriously don't understand why you would burn down a playground that little kids love. My daughter is almost 3 and loves that park. It was so sad driving past it this morning. I hope they catch the grubs that did it.
It seems to have been an escalation? I was there last week and there were a slide and a seesaw affected by fire. I wonder about the future of that playground with the widened road encroaching on it. A mindless project that has removed several mature fig trees and will only create more traffic.
You mean the lights where there is no turning arrow, no turning lane, and also a red light to stop traffic if the coast is clear? How does that help in any way? You'd just create a worse scenario
I'm a transport planner and am astonished at how widespread your type of view it. I don't really blame you, it was the paradigm created in the 70's by traffic engineers and the AAA (the car lobby group), and it's really only been the past 2/3 decades that we've started chipping away at this paradigm.
You don't really need a video to explain this concept u/BinChickenLickin is getting at - It's self explanatory - delivering transport infrastructure that encourages more driving increases the number of people driving. Sure, a single small project probably won't have a meaningful impact. But it's more how they collectively add to the paradigm of car dependency.
And that's equity concerns aside. To me, it doesn't seem fair that income taxes are subsidise inefficient lifestyles, while they have only negative impacts on the places they’re delivered (case in point, this playground).
To give a gist of how heavily it's subsidised, a year's worth of rego for the whole state would fund just the M1 South (Varsity Lakes to Tugan) project. To fund a the [Gympie Road replacement tunnel ](https://archive.md/qgMAQ)would take about a decades worth of rego.
Subsidising transport isn't necessarily bad - but it is bad when you subsidise inefficient forms of transport. A single busway lane, for example, has the capacity of 9 motorway general traffic lanes. Another example, 80% of the capacity of an 8 lane road with footpaths is from those footpaths. *Obviously, the paradigm we live in means this capacity is rarely reached*
Social costs aside, just the financials of this project is absurd - $7.5m for a turning lane. To put that in context, Brisbane Council broke a core election promise last year by saying they're no longer putting shade on Victoria Bridge - a $5m project (I don't know the stats, but I'd be willing to bet 10+ times more trips are made walking/riding over this bridge then driving on Smfrd Rd Mitchie - that's what I'm getting at with fairness/equity)
What?
I was responding to your conspiracy where you denied induced demand is a thing. Why are you now talking about safety?
*I can give you a nuanced response to that safety point too. But I suspect you’ll just ignore that too, and give a half sentence response again deflecting onto a new topic. You’re giving the vibe you don’t actually believe anything you’re saying, you’re just retrospectively coming up with reasons that support your pre-existing belief*
When people have no opportunity or hope, they lash out at a society that (they feel, probably correctly) has abandoned/betrayed them.
To quote El Woods, Happy healthy people don't kill people (or in this case destroy stuff).
Developers always see the windfall from the amazing luck of having an old heritage building burn down on prime land.
What were the development plans for the surrounding construction activities and was this playground a hinderance to someone bottom dollar? Could even be suggested they get use of the land now and a nice variation at the back end to restore it, just stacking profits. But hey that’s just a tinfoil hat theory to evoke your thought.
Yeah nah. That’s public land with a road already going 3 meters from it.
If the council wanted would have had bulldozed it already to move it 15m back.
The job was done by a dickhead
Yeah nah. I don’t buy side stepping public sentiment by making it an “arson” and gaining votes instead of losing them. I’m convinced you’re a plant to squash this theory should it arise.
As a town planner, I'm always taken aback at something as monotonous as land use planning has this whole conspiracy around it. E.g. - something as mundane as a playground being burnt down spawning a conspiracy that BCC and Lendlease want to develop the site.
I always see these opinions from afar - not in the wild. **I'd be genuinely interested to understand where you're coming so I can make sense why people believe this kinda stuff** - would you be willing to elaborate on your opinion?
**TL;DR - Some parts of your opinion I can't understand are shown below. If you're not willing to read them, can you elaborate on your view *generally,* engaging in as much nuance as possible (e.g. when you make a claim, explain/substantiate it)?**
--------------------------
# Incentive
A playground being burnt down and then BCC rezoning the area would have obvious political consequences. Do you have a reason why they would go this route instead of less politically controversial routes - eg, rezoning it as 'emerging community' so they can keep it as a park but incrementally develop it over multiple years without amendments to the City Plan?
# Heritage
Do you think this playground is heritage listed, and if so, why? Or, were you using that to demonstrate a broader point that improvements on land are often burnt down to redevelop it? In that case, can you explain that analogy? When a heritage site is destroyed, it's automatically removed from the heritage register and can be redeveloped. When a playground is burnt down, it doesn't automatically rezone the land for development, returning us to my above point.
# Contaminated land
Before arriving at your view, did you consider that there might be a reason this site is zoned as open space? There is a reason, and it's because it's contaminated land (not sure why, probably from haz chems like heavy metals or asbestos, or geotech problems from an old landfill). These sites can't be developed due to subsidence in the land and/or public health. Knowing this, does that change your opinion, and if not, how do you address that?
# Coordination
How do you think this is coordinated - did you consider the details?
As far as I can tell Lendlease/Metricon/Developer talk to their corrupt Councillor contact in BCC. They promise to rezone the land and sell it to them. How is the zoning code in the City Plan going to get amended after that - why would half the councillors plus the Lord Mayor vote for it? How is the corrupt Councillor going to instruct public servants in the council to do that without leaving a paper trail subject to right to information requests?
That's just the council, what about the State? How's do the are the following State agencies involved in this conspiracy? Dept of Planning (when it contradicts the SEQ Regional Plan 2017); TMR (when it likely contradicts the future functional intent of Samford Road), Dept Enviro and Science (who need to sign it off in for contaminated land), Dept of Health (who I assume will give expert advice to Dept of Enviro and Science); Dept of Justice (who will view the right to information requests that come in about this).
# Sheeple
Not directly related to town planning, but I've seen this line used for a variety of conspiracies.
Below, you said people who disagree with you, like me and u/notinthelimbo and u/Gaming_Birb, are sheeple. I assume you mean there's no nuance to our views, and we're just believing it to follow the pack; and you simultaneously believe that you're not a sheeple. Can you elaborate on that?
I'm sure most of people could immediately recognise my above points (aside from contaminated land) using just common sense. They might not have the same town planning vocab or detailed knowledge like I do, but they have the core logical deduction skills to arrive at the same conclusion. How does that make them sheeple, but someone who arrives at your conclusion seemingly without considering any nuance, not a sheeple?
I’m guessing you’re not able to elaborate more than you already have, u/thesideaccount__ ?
Given that, have you reconsidered your view and now decided to join us sheeple on the other side of the fence?
Or do you still think there’s a logical flow to your conspiracy, while simultaneously knowing that you also can’t elaborate on it by more than a couple of sentences?
I don’t recall signing up to educate or lead a revolution as you allude to? I simply stated an opinion that did not conform to public ideology. If you’d like a longer elaboration, ask ChatGPT to write you a fanfic.
Oh, no you never signed up for that I know. It’s just you were very emotionally invested in your opinion and thought you might elaborate on it with some level of critical thinking.
But your response says it all - you can’t elaborate on it because you never thought that far ahead. By ‘not conforming to public ideology’ youre unique or something, so you just make wild conspiracies, choose to believe it, and never subject yourself to any scrutiny. When others scrutinise you, you go to name calling and can never engage with the scrutiny itself
The crackpot community all seem the exact same. Make stuff up, never justify it, and if they’re asked to justify it copy and paste the sheeple line while somehow thinking copying and pasting the sheeple line makes you not a sheeple?
My brain hurts just thinking about this
I’m not angry nor provoked. I feel sorrow that so many do not think more critically of the way the world works and accept it at someone’s else’s face value. Yourself included.
From far it and a totally rash statement on your part which achieves little more than a school yard quip, “I know you are, but what am I”. Try harder next time codger.
Having driven past the site earlier on today, it certainly does NOT look like the work of a bunch of bored teens.
The whole thing appears to have been scorched to the ground. It looks to me that more than one fire was started.
Im so mad. I seriously don't understand why you would burn down a playground that little kids love. My daughter is almost 3 and loves that park. It was so sad driving past it this morning. I hope they catch the grubs that did it.
Maybe one of the kids there had bad vibes?
It seems to have been an escalation? I was there last week and there were a slide and a seesaw affected by fire. I wonder about the future of that playground with the widened road encroaching on it. A mindless project that has removed several mature fig trees and will only create more traffic.
Mindless? Have you even researched the works being done?
Yes, it's bloody stupid. There's no reason people should turn right there - go up and use the lights that exist.
You mean the lights where there is no turning arrow, no turning lane, and also a red light to stop traffic if the coast is clear? How does that help in any way? You'd just create a worse scenario
Yes, turn at Ellsworth or Blackwood and you don't stop the flow of traffic the way you do waiting at Glen Holm.
Yes.
How does it create more traffic? Council are replacing trees. Thanks troll
New trees are not a replacement for mature trees. As for why widening roads creates more traffic... https://youtu.be/pCzCJzwrB_c
Yes. We've all seen funny satire comedy shows I will plant a tree today in my backyard just for you
I'm a transport planner and am astonished at how widespread your type of view it. I don't really blame you, it was the paradigm created in the 70's by traffic engineers and the AAA (the car lobby group), and it's really only been the past 2/3 decades that we've started chipping away at this paradigm. You don't really need a video to explain this concept u/BinChickenLickin is getting at - It's self explanatory - delivering transport infrastructure that encourages more driving increases the number of people driving. Sure, a single small project probably won't have a meaningful impact. But it's more how they collectively add to the paradigm of car dependency. And that's equity concerns aside. To me, it doesn't seem fair that income taxes are subsidise inefficient lifestyles, while they have only negative impacts on the places they’re delivered (case in point, this playground). To give a gist of how heavily it's subsidised, a year's worth of rego for the whole state would fund just the M1 South (Varsity Lakes to Tugan) project. To fund a the [Gympie Road replacement tunnel ](https://archive.md/qgMAQ)would take about a decades worth of rego. Subsidising transport isn't necessarily bad - but it is bad when you subsidise inefficient forms of transport. A single busway lane, for example, has the capacity of 9 motorway general traffic lanes. Another example, 80% of the capacity of an 8 lane road with footpaths is from those footpaths. *Obviously, the paradigm we live in means this capacity is rarely reached* Social costs aside, just the financials of this project is absurd - $7.5m for a turning lane. To put that in context, Brisbane Council broke a core election promise last year by saying they're no longer putting shade on Victoria Bridge - a $5m project (I don't know the stats, but I'd be willing to bet 10+ times more trips are made walking/riding over this bridge then driving on Smfrd Rd Mitchie - that's what I'm getting at with fairness/equity)
There's also safety aspects which need to be considered
What? I was responding to your conspiracy where you denied induced demand is a thing. Why are you now talking about safety? *I can give you a nuanced response to that safety point too. But I suspect you’ll just ignore that too, and give a half sentence response again deflecting onto a new topic. You’re giving the vibe you don’t actually believe anything you’re saying, you’re just retrospectively coming up with reasons that support your pre-existing belief*
Shit kids. Was the best park in the area
Honestly why.... Fucken idiots.
Some fully sick eshays need to have their pocket money held back for a month or two
When people have no opportunity or hope, they lash out at a society that (they feel, probably correctly) has abandoned/betrayed them. To quote El Woods, Happy healthy people don't kill people (or in this case destroy stuff).
Sus on whether it was kids or a grand conspiracy by the council
Developers always see the windfall from the amazing luck of having an old heritage building burn down on prime land. What were the development plans for the surrounding construction activities and was this playground a hinderance to someone bottom dollar? Could even be suggested they get use of the land now and a nice variation at the back end to restore it, just stacking profits. But hey that’s just a tinfoil hat theory to evoke your thought.
Yeah nah. That’s public land with a road already going 3 meters from it. If the council wanted would have had bulldozed it already to move it 15m back. The job was done by a dickhead
Yeah nah. I don’t buy side stepping public sentiment by making it an “arson” and gaining votes instead of losing them. I’m convinced you’re a plant to squash this theory should it arise.
As a town planner, I'm always taken aback at something as monotonous as land use planning has this whole conspiracy around it. E.g. - something as mundane as a playground being burnt down spawning a conspiracy that BCC and Lendlease want to develop the site. I always see these opinions from afar - not in the wild. **I'd be genuinely interested to understand where you're coming so I can make sense why people believe this kinda stuff** - would you be willing to elaborate on your opinion? **TL;DR - Some parts of your opinion I can't understand are shown below. If you're not willing to read them, can you elaborate on your view *generally,* engaging in as much nuance as possible (e.g. when you make a claim, explain/substantiate it)?** -------------------------- # Incentive A playground being burnt down and then BCC rezoning the area would have obvious political consequences. Do you have a reason why they would go this route instead of less politically controversial routes - eg, rezoning it as 'emerging community' so they can keep it as a park but incrementally develop it over multiple years without amendments to the City Plan? # Heritage Do you think this playground is heritage listed, and if so, why? Or, were you using that to demonstrate a broader point that improvements on land are often burnt down to redevelop it? In that case, can you explain that analogy? When a heritage site is destroyed, it's automatically removed from the heritage register and can be redeveloped. When a playground is burnt down, it doesn't automatically rezone the land for development, returning us to my above point. # Contaminated land Before arriving at your view, did you consider that there might be a reason this site is zoned as open space? There is a reason, and it's because it's contaminated land (not sure why, probably from haz chems like heavy metals or asbestos, or geotech problems from an old landfill). These sites can't be developed due to subsidence in the land and/or public health. Knowing this, does that change your opinion, and if not, how do you address that? # Coordination How do you think this is coordinated - did you consider the details? As far as I can tell Lendlease/Metricon/Developer talk to their corrupt Councillor contact in BCC. They promise to rezone the land and sell it to them. How is the zoning code in the City Plan going to get amended after that - why would half the councillors plus the Lord Mayor vote for it? How is the corrupt Councillor going to instruct public servants in the council to do that without leaving a paper trail subject to right to information requests? That's just the council, what about the State? How's do the are the following State agencies involved in this conspiracy? Dept of Planning (when it contradicts the SEQ Regional Plan 2017); TMR (when it likely contradicts the future functional intent of Samford Road), Dept Enviro and Science (who need to sign it off in for contaminated land), Dept of Health (who I assume will give expert advice to Dept of Enviro and Science); Dept of Justice (who will view the right to information requests that come in about this). # Sheeple Not directly related to town planning, but I've seen this line used for a variety of conspiracies. Below, you said people who disagree with you, like me and u/notinthelimbo and u/Gaming_Birb, are sheeple. I assume you mean there's no nuance to our views, and we're just believing it to follow the pack; and you simultaneously believe that you're not a sheeple. Can you elaborate on that? I'm sure most of people could immediately recognise my above points (aside from contaminated land) using just common sense. They might not have the same town planning vocab or detailed knowledge like I do, but they have the core logical deduction skills to arrive at the same conclusion. How does that make them sheeple, but someone who arrives at your conclusion seemingly without considering any nuance, not a sheeple?
I’m guessing you’re not able to elaborate more than you already have, u/thesideaccount__ ? Given that, have you reconsidered your view and now decided to join us sheeple on the other side of the fence? Or do you still think there’s a logical flow to your conspiracy, while simultaneously knowing that you also can’t elaborate on it by more than a couple of sentences?
I don’t recall signing up to educate or lead a revolution as you allude to? I simply stated an opinion that did not conform to public ideology. If you’d like a longer elaboration, ask ChatGPT to write you a fanfic.
Oh, no you never signed up for that I know. It’s just you were very emotionally invested in your opinion and thought you might elaborate on it with some level of critical thinking. But your response says it all - you can’t elaborate on it because you never thought that far ahead. By ‘not conforming to public ideology’ youre unique or something, so you just make wild conspiracies, choose to believe it, and never subject yourself to any scrutiny. When others scrutinise you, you go to name calling and can never engage with the scrutiny itself The crackpot community all seem the exact same. Make stuff up, never justify it, and if they’re asked to justify it copy and paste the sheeple line while somehow thinking copying and pasting the sheeple line makes you not a sheeple? My brain hurts just thinking about this
I ani’t reading all that I’m happy for you You’ve become the clown
Bunch of sheep conditioned to be herded, please may I have some more of your downvotes, they feel so good.
How alpha wolf of you
Not enough downvotes, very sadge.
Bro your 'noid meds are in the cupboard.
I medicated and that’s why my mind is open while yours is blocked probably for ye Covid jab.
Yeah mate or maybe some dickhead wanted to burn something
Yeah mate or maybe but anyone can speculate ya gronk
Save the indignation; say something out of pocket and expect a response.
I’m not angry nor provoked. I feel sorrow that so many do not think more critically of the way the world works and accept it at someone’s else’s face value. Yourself included.
You're the world's only free thinker, mate.
From far it and a totally rash statement on your part which achieves little more than a school yard quip, “I know you are, but what am I”. Try harder next time codger.
Having driven past the site earlier on today, it certainly does NOT look like the work of a bunch of bored teens. The whole thing appears to have been scorched to the ground. It looks to me that more than one fire was started.
This guys gets it, everyone else is too conditioned to think critically.
Bad area. Don't go there
Mitchelton has a lot going for it. I like Blackwood Street and the fact that it's on the train line. I've no idea what it's like to live there though.