When pedestrians find existing pathways or roadways inconvenient or dangerous, they will naturally look for alternatives. When there is no marked path, people will work it out for themselves – and make their own path. We might call it a shortcut. But a path made that way is, in the jargon of urban design, called a desire line or desire path. The image for this post shows an example running down from McVilly Drive down to the Intercity Cycleway.

Maybe the architect or designer gave more thought to the aesthetics (or the cost) than to whether people would actually use them.

In some situations, designers build no path, wait to see where people walk, then build the path there.

I’ve written about desire lines here because the term appears in the agenda for the July 2023 GPA meeting (page 15). The agenda item concerns a proposed development at 72-74 Main Road, Claremont, and contains a few paragraphs arguing for no change to the service road for the new development. It is part of an attempt (perfunctory as usual) to consider the needs of pedestrians. It is as weak as dishwater.

It was really a token gesture because, as you can see below, the current service road provides no safety for pedestrians. And there is too little space on its verges to provide any.

In any case, it would be truly miraculous for the needs of pedestrians to be a serious part of any GPA discussion.

A desire line will usually be the shortest or quickest route from A to B. But not always. People can take account of details in the landscape. And there may be more than one desire line from A to B, with one going up and the other going down, depending on the terrain.

Next time you go walking, notice where you walk, and you will occasionally find yourself on a desire line (possibly even starting a new one).

For more information

1. Desire paths: the illicit trails that defy the urban planners from the Guardian.
2. Desire lines: to pave or not to pave? from the University of New South Wales.
3. Desire lines: signs of bad design? from Daniel Bowen.
4. What desire paths can tell us about how to design safer, better public spaces from the ABC (Australia).

Note

The image for this post is the desire path running down from McVilly Drive
to Intercity Cycleway in Hobart near the Regatta Ground. Photo taken 27 July 2023.

Recent reports of construction and demolition work on the Claremont Primary School site prompted me to find out more. Below are direct quotes from replies from someone intimately involved in the development project.

My first question related to the work going on now.

“[I’m] happy to say that the demolition of the newer extensions to the school are as per our DA permit. We are also adding temporary protective works to the roof and making the walls of the main building more secure to try and stop unauthorised ingress and protect more from weather. These were requirements of the permit and the owner felt it was best to do them now while we still work on finalising the project so as to not risk any further damage. 

This will hopefully make the site less of an attraction to vandals and make it harder for them to get in to the lovely main building that of course remains and will have its facade restored to its previous state. The grounds will also be easier to upkeep as it will remove a number of hazards on the ground. 

We are still the architects and still working hard to get the best results for everyone including the local community.”

Email received July 2, 2023 with minor edits for readability.

My next question related to possible changes to the original design.

“There is not much I can say due to commercial confidentiality but also simply things not being finalised in terms of decision as to what if anything to change.

As you are aware covid and other recent events have affected the construction industry heavily in terms of material costs and other site costs which affected many projects across the state in terms of their feasibility studies, Claremont included. We have therefore been working hard with builders and others to understand better the various cost implications of materials etc so we can make sure we document a project that maintains its viability under the new conditions. This has meant exploring options of reducing scale and other elements which may be what you are referring to but I stress that we have not made any decision as to the final outcome of these explorations and that is why we do not wish to be premature in stating that things have or haven’t changed as that just causes confusion, frustration and disappointment.

Our eye is always on making the project as good as it can be for all concerned, and is not priced out of reach for those who wish to live there. We think the market is settling down now with logistics problems and material shortage problems being reduced so we can start to feel more confident in what we have to deal with. The project will be built in stages in over a number of years and so need to get these things right.

I am sorry we cannot be more forthcoming at present, the whole industry is frustrated at the moment, believe me, but we believe some firmness is returning to the relevant areas. Architect is both an art and a business and it is difficult to get these balances right, so we are not going to rush it.”

Email received July 5, 2023

The comments above come directly from someone in the project team. They are the facts.

PS. Received this supplementary information today (July 14) from the same source on the project team:

“The demolition and tidy up for the site should finish next week. We will be leaving some of the slabs as we wish to crush and recycle that material to help with raising the ground level in some locations to help with the local flood issues that was part of our DA requirement. They are also useful for.the builders during construction to place their site huts etc.”

Email received July 14, 2023

The McGill Rise saga continues. It’s disappearance from the media does not mean it is done and dusted.

Back in October last year I mentioned the disciplinary panel run by CBOS focusing on those involved in the development. Back in October CBOS said “action is underway to close this process out”. On March 14 I learnt that the panel continues. But readers might be pleased to learn that there have been consequences. CBOS said: “practitioners that are no longer licensed include both of the builders, the building surveyor and the building designer”.

The other strand to the story is Glenorchy City Council’s obligation to ensure public health and safety.

The legal list of the Tasmanian Supreme Court in the Mercury (March 15) contained the item “For notice to review: Aviation Consolidated Holdings Pty Ltd v Glenorchy City Council”. Council helpfully provided the following response to my query.

“The Council infringed Aviation Holdings (the developer company for McGill Rise) in relation to non-compliance with a building order which required the removal of unapproved fill from a pad at McGill Rise. That infringement notice was contested in the Magistrates Court, but the developer was convicted of that offence. The developer has recently appealed their conviction to the Supreme Court.”

In plain English:

1. Council made a building order requiring the removal of unapproved fill from a pad.
2. The developers did not do it in time.
3. Council issued the developer an infringement notice.
4. The developers disputed the notice in the Magistrates Court.
5. The Court came down on the side of Council, and upheld the notice.
6. The developer is now appealing the Magistrates Court decision all the way to the Supreme Court.

The agenda for the coming March 27 Council meeting includes a closed session item “22. Approval of legal expenditure”. That item could include McGill Rise. Decisions on whether or not to continue legal action are not easy. Council does not have inexhaustible funds – and can get no external funding to help.

Are the developers, Aviation Consolidated Holdings, trying to wear Council down, to make them give up? My feeling is that most of us would want Council to hold the developers accountable for their actions. But how much do we want them to spend?

We’ll try to keep you up to date.

Council takes action on safety

At tonight’s open council meeting (27/11/2023) we “accidentally” learnt of action being taken right now to improve safety at the McGill Rise site.

Agenda item 20 relates to a fairly obscure report – the Procurement And Contracts Exemptions Report – explaining where council has in unusual or extreme circumstances taken a shortcut through the Council’s Code for Tenders and Contracts.

To quote the agenda, the exemption was for “the supply and installation of water filled barriers to be used at the base of batter slopes on the McGill Rise development at Claremont. The product installed is to provide a safety barrier for any potential rocks that become dislodged from the face of the building platform batters.” The action was urgent.

Ratepayers will be pleased to learn that they should not expect to have to contribute to the cost of $65,165 because council has issued abatement notices on the affected properties.

There has been talk on some Facebook groups about the apparent disappearance of ducks from Windermere Bay. There was speculation that Glenorchy City Council had conducted a cull, possibly with poison.

Councillor Dunsby appeared in the Facebook group and undertook to look into the matter. But we’ve not seen a response yet.

In the meantime, I contacted the experts in ducks in Tasmania – Birdlife Tasmania – to see if they could shed any light on the situation.

Here is a very detailed response received from Jason Graham, a registered native duck carer, who currently helps to coordinate a joint-council education project in southern Tasmania about the impacts of duck feeding and about raising awareness of the existence of our different native duck species. The “Eric” he refers to is Eric Woehler, convenor of Birdlife Tasmania.

Response from Jason Graham

Thank you for your concern and making the effort to reach out to an organization! I’m passionate about the conservation and welfare of native ducks in Tasmania, particularly the Pacific black duck. I specialize in the identification of mallard x Pacific black duck hybrids, as I saw many of these crosses come into care when I worked at Bonorong Wildlife Sanctuary. While working there I started to learn about how widespread the issue of domestic ducks breeding with native Pacific black ducks (PBD) is in Tasmania, as the majority of ducks we were having called through the rescue service in some years were domestic mallards and mallard x PBD hybrids. These hybrids are fertile, so over time and ongoing cross breeding, hybrids can replace PBDs.

Eric and I believe that the majority of ducks present in Windermere Bay, and therefore the ducks that are now missing, are domestic mallards and mallard x PBD hybrids.

There is a serious risk to the genetic identity of Pacific black ducks in Tasmania. A pure/actual Pacific black duck can be hard to find in parts of the Derwent such as Windermere Bay. On several visits over the last few years, I have counted large numbers of domestic mallards and mallard x PBD hybrids, and rarely encounter any native species or non-hybrid PBDs. For example, on this survey I counted 61 domestic mallards and mallard x PBD hybrids, and no native duck species: . Here are some of the photos from the area.

I’ve had a look through surveys for Windermere Bay and there are some records of low numbers of Australian wood ducks and Chestnut teals, but it’s likely these were not in the main duck area near the car park and gazebos. It’s also important to mention that native species are never culled by councils. Apart from duck hunting, the only native ducks that are culled in Tasmania as far as I’m aware are by farmers and golf courses. Wood ducks are unfortunately the main victims in both cases as their favourite food is grass. These permits are organised by the state government and have nothing to do with local councils. As far as duck conservation and welfare is concerned, Southern Tasmanian councils are doing far more good than the state government!

It’s also important to remember that when councils do remove domestic ducks, they only need to do so due to the cruel actions of people dumping unwanted pet ducks in the first place. It’s the same as with people who dump chickens on the side of the road. The big difference is that many of these chickens don’t survive long due to starvation, exposure and predators. Domestic mallard ducks don’t face these same problems and can thrive, especially when they’re fed by people.

Councils are in a tough spot, and don’t actually want to cull ducks, but are forced to by the actions of irresponsible and cruel duck owners. Down the track I want to push for a registration system for ownership, like with cats and dogs, to try and reduce dumping and the resulting culling.

There could be a bit of migration happening. Domestic mallards don’t usually stray far from feeding areas, but they may have moved to other problem areas in the Derwent, such as Old Beach, Newtown Rivulet, Wrest Point etc. Mallard x PBD hybrids are more capable of migration (due to PBD ancestry) and may have flown elsewhere, which can be a problem for pure PBD populations.

I also like to think that some ducks may have moved on due to there being less feeding, as was the council’s intention by placing new signage in the area. But this may be wishful thinking and may take years! The more that people feed and put water out for domestic ducks, the more they are supported and breed succesfully, meaning more ducks need to be removed by council. It’s unfortate that many of the people who have complained about the council’s actions in the past are partly responsible for the need for action!

Duck feeding only supports domestic ducks in Australia. Most natives are too timid to approach humans, and most have completely different diets to domestic ducks (musk ducks for example are mostly carnivorous!). Some like Chestnut Teals, PBDs and Wood Ducks will hang around for leftovers, and this increases mallard x PBD crossbreeding by encouraging the two species to hang around together. These species can simply fly and swim elsewhere for more nutritious, natural food anyway.

If interested, I moderate a facebook group on the issue. We share information about current action, hybrid x pure PBD identification tips, ways for people to help etc.

I helped Glenorchy Council create a page in their website last year about the impacts of duck feeding, and about what native species we have in Tasmania. This is especially relevant to Windermere Bay.

And lastly, if you are interested in learning how to identify them, I wrote an article on identifying mallard x PBD hybrids vs pure PBDs birds.

End of response.

In summary, next time you are carrying your bag of old bread to feed the ducks, think again! Put that bag in the bin. While the feeding may give you a warm fuzzy feeling, you may be doing more harm than good.

Just watch them. See the cute way in which they behave. And leave it at that.

There are many bus stops in Glenorchy where infrastructure can be described as truly awful in terms of safety.

But Council comments have always suggested that it was unclear where responsibility for those bus stops lay – Council or the state Department of State Growth (DSG).

A recent email from the DSG concerning the Bus Stop Upgrade Program said “it is expected that bus stop infrastructure on local roads or local footpaths will continue to be owned by local government”. Clearly, the department believes that Council “owns” the bus stops. However, the same email says “final arrangements for maintenance continue to be discussed between the department and councils”. That program will provide funds to Council for upgrades to “high priority” bus stops. Council will be responsible for the upgrades. It seems the program demands clarity on responsibilities when the program work is complete.

It will be interesting to see whether Council takes on responsibilities for bus stops unaffected by the program.

I certainly hope that Council informs us of the resulting situation because there are certainly bus stops in the city that require work. Here are a couple of the worst I’ve come across in my travels.

Stop 39 on Berriedale Road

A narrow path is the only access. Surrounded by trees and no street lighting, so unlit on a dark night. No assistance crossing the road from the bus stop. Anyone waiting would be invisible to bus drivers. No shelter whatsoever (but that is not unusual). No timetable attached to the pole. It is clearly designed to be a good-weather day-light drop-off stop only. Awful!

Stop on exit to Glenorchy from Bowen Bridge

Well here is another that is almost as bad, on the left hand side as you go toward Glenorchy from the Bowen Bridge. It is clearly intended (I hope) only for people to get off a bus – but it is unsafe even for that limited purpose. It takes more than a small bus stop sign stuck to a light pole to make a safe bus stop. Cheap and dangerous.

Further information from the Pedestrian & Public Transport Users Group
(on Facebook 04/04/2021 09:37)

Source: Christian Bell.

Met with State Growth, they stated that was their position. Policy no longer resides with Metro, it’s the departments position. The stated they might provide new seats and shelters on new routes (at their discretion) but on existing routes it was up to local government. Whenever the public ring up wanting a new seat. If they ring up the response they will get from the state government is “try local government”, if they ring up local they get the response “try state government”. Local government just views the State Governments position as cost shifting.

Pedestrian & Public Transport Users Group (on Facebook 04/04/2021 09:37)