Skinner Smackdown: The man versus The Man

Would make a great used car salesman: Anna Bligh.

Anna Bligh has done her best to rig the upcoming 'Enquiry by Design' process for the Multiplex monstrosity at North Bank, but UQ architecture academic Associate Professor Peter Skinner is having none of it: his submission to the 'Enquiry' starts with 1. Sack Multiplex as preferred developer. Let's have a round of applause for that. Associate Professor Skinner has some rather good alternative ideas for the site, which you can read if you download the PDF. I've cherry-picked some of the best bits- Skinner's submission is a total smackdown of Multiplex and Anna Bligh's not-at-all-corrupt government:

1. Sack Multiplex as preferred developer. They submitted a ‘binding tender’ proposal that proved unacceptable to 57% of respondents in public consultation. They were allowed to revise their binding tender and were given the ‘green light’ without the promised proper public consultation. Their design and the claim that the scheme would ‘allow the Brisbane river to flow unimpeded as it does now’ has always been preposterous impossible and wrong. The Enquiry by Design process should not be seen to allow Multiplex an opportunity to further amend their ‘binding tender’ - a third bite of the tender cherry.

2. Eliminate car parking from the site. Rather than introduce 1700 cars to service private buildings plus additional car parking for the public as Multiplex propose, we should aim to eliminate all but the most essential vehicular intrusion onto the site.

1700 cars?! What moron came up with that idea, and what moron approved it? Oh wait, we already know the answer to those two questions...

3. Tear down the chainmesh and barbed wire. One of the greatest impediments to public access to the river is the ‘security’ fencing around government car park sites. The Government’s Guantanamo Bay landscape strategy is an offence against good taste, but more importantly a highly dangerous environment for users of this area. It violates basic CPTED principles.

14. Respect the history of the area. Include Turrbal and Jagera engagement in the Enquiry by design process. Respect the fact that over 184 years the area between William Street and the River has grown as the state’s administrative, executive and symbolic precinct, proudly visible to all on approach to the city. The relatively recent decision to allow gambling interests to infest the Treasury and Lands Administration buildings was very unfortunate, but thankfully is not irreversible in time. The Precinct as a whole needs protective legislation to protect it from this sort of mercenary assault in the future.

Finally, I had to include the whole of point 15. Peter Skinner also bags Anna Bligh's moronic Tank Street Bridge project and uses it to ask why, if not spending taxpayers' money on infrastructure projects is the ultimate goal, she was able to come up with $65 million of taxpayers' money for a completely superfluous pedestrian bridge. Why? Maybe whichever developer is building the Tank St Bridge also made convenient 'donations' to Labor. It's increasingly hard to tell whether Anna Bligh is corrupt, incompetent or stupid, or possibly all three. Who else would allow such wanton pillaging of Brisbane after all the mistakes that have been made with regard to 'development' in the past? I will *not* be voting for or preferencing Labor at the next state election. Not a chance. Sorry, Ronan Lee. It's obviously time Queensland had a Spring clean.

15. No net cost to taxpayers. What a malign and mean mantra this has turned out to be.
No other street or footpath in the CBD is expected to run at a profit, let alone generate three million dollars per lineal metre. The ‘no-cost’ motto if applied is a shirking of responsibility for civic planning and a gross insult to past generations who have poured their resources, noble ambitions, and hard work into the magnificent buildings of the city. If the Government is not investing any funds in the project, it has no incentive or mechanism to rein back the private partner from excess and folly. As for the developer, the bigger and more expensive the project, the more they stand to gain. This is a sure-fire recipe for disaster. It would appear that $65 million can be found for a seemingly redundant and frivolous pedestrian bridge at Tank Street, yet it is claimed there isn’t sixpence of taxpayers money to be spent on the most fundamental provision of safety and amenity for the users of Brisbane’s City Cats and visitors to our city.

The net cost to taxpayers must surely be measured as the expenditure minus the benefit. Calculated properly the Multiplex scheme has a huge and ongoing cost to Queenslanders, starting with the loss of their river and ending with an increased risk of loss of property and life. By contrast, the proposal outlined here involves relatively miniscule expenditure and should return handsome benefits, starting with improved safety and accessibility, working through a more attractive welcome to the tourism market and ending with a redemption of pride in the achievements of Queenslanders over our ancient and recent history.

Implementing the fourteen ideas above would fulfil all of the aims and provisions of the North Bank Strategic Plan in a way that the Multiplex scheme patently doesn’t and can’t. There is nothing outrageously expensive in these proposals and by obviating the need to drive piles into the river and erect high-rise towers over the water and park thousands of unneeded cars, it will of course cost only a tiny fraction of Multiplex’s bloated budget.