A park in Honeysuckle? Newcastle can do so much better
The site is earmarked as the grand finale of the Honeysuckle development, to be called Honeysuckle Quays, or HQ. If the state government doesn't stuff up the project, we will get the spectacle of a tall city centre rising beside the water - smaller than but visually similar to such marvels as Sydney, Hong Kong and New York.
Using the land as a park, on the other hand, would be a sound way of confirming our condition as good ol' country-town Newcastle.
Herald letter writer Denis Hainsworth proposed the idea of a park on the site a month ago. "Instead of a high-rise, wouldn't it be fantastic to have a large park that would provide much-needed green space in this part of the city?" he wrote.
And my fellow Herald columnist John Tierney took up the cause in an article on Tuesday, saying that the land could "provide critically needed open green space for the series of tower apartment buildings, some over 20 storeys, that have been built or are now under construction on nearby land in Newcastle West."
Yes, the idea is appealing. But putting a park anywhere is always appealing.
Show me a site in Newcastle where people would disagree with the statement "Wouldn't it be nice to have a park here."
No one ever challenges a statement that a park is "needed". But the area that we set aside for parks is always a matter of balance. And not even inner-city Newcastle is in danger of under-doing that balance.
The new core of the city centre is rising around the interchange. The most intense part will be from Tudor Street to Bank Corner; it's intended to extend towards the harbour through the HQ site.
All this is as close as 150 metres from enormous National Park, 23 hectares of green space, about as big as 400 suburban residential lots.
Just 600 metres west of the interchange is splendid Wickham Park, which is cut off from the city now but should become accessible as redevelopment proceeds.
The harbour itself offers open space. We can't walk on it, but we can walk beside it under trees that have hardly begun to grow. No one living or working around the new city centre will feel a lack of open space.
As John Tierney says, we should have had more open space along the harbourfront. But the state government, working with Newcastle council, has stuffed up Honeysuckle good and proper with the damnable concrete canyon and by failing to adequately connect the redevelopment zone with Hunter Street.
Now we must not fail to make the best use of the Honeysuckle land that we have left: HQ.
It must be a site for buildings because it would connect the new city-centre core with the water, making it much more alluring to go into town.
In attracting people, it should breathe more life into the rest of Honeysuckle.
HQ is right next to the interchange. We must maximise the use of our central railway station with its integrated tramline and bus terminal.
Apartment buildings, hotels, offices and shops would do that. A park wouldn't.
In extending development to the water, HQ will at last provide a bit of depth to our inconveniently skinny city centre, which has always imposed long walking distances.
HQ will also offer a visual spectacle - not just for us to admire but for outsiders to notice, letting them know that, actually, we're not another country town in "regional Australia".
Its effect on our national image should be enormous. That would attract more investment and jobs.
This aspect of HQ must not be underestimated. And we cannot achieve the same effect anywhere else on the harbour, because this is the last site.
Now, there are two little opportunities for enlarging inner-city park space near the interchange that we should seize - not because we really need to, but because we can.
When King Street was extended through poor old Birdwood Park in 1973, we were left with two fragments of open space that are barely more than traffic islands.
On their north sides is King Street, and on the south sides each has a road that we could abolish. We'd greatly improve the little parks by adding the widths of those roads to them.
The roads aren't needed because the adjoining sites, including the western part of Marketown, also front Parry Street.
One of these fragmentary parks is called Little Birdwood Park, a good name that we should keep. The other is merely the "King Street Reserve", a name that we can improve on.
In the 19th century, the AA Company's rail line to its coal mines at Hamilton, including the Borehole No.1 and No.2 pits, passed along what is now the King Street Reserve.
In his book Coal, Railways and Mines, the historian Brian Robert Andrews reprints this report from the Maitland Mercury of 28 March 1857, when horses still hauled the trains:
"A melancholy accident occurred to a boy named Joseph Newman, about 12 years of age, employed on the Borehole road [rail line], on Saturday last. It appears his regular employment was to take out a spare horse about half a mile on the road to meet the loaded trains, and that he then used to ride in on the waggons. On the day in question he had got on the waggons as usual, but it appears he got off again and went for a drink in a house close by. The driver soon after missed him, and looking back saw his body lying along the road."
Little Joseph Newman, horribly injured, appears to have slipped and fallen under a train.
Let's enlarge the King Street Reserve and call it Newman Park.
The idea is appealing, but it would be a colossal mistake. The harbourfront redevelopment site next to Newcastle Interchange should not become a park.
The site is earmarked as the grand finale of the Honeysuckle development, to be called Honeysuckle Quays, or HQ. If the state government doesn't stuff up the project, we will get the spectacle of a tall city centre rising beside the water - smaller than but visually similar to such marvels as Sydney, Hong Kong and New York.
Using the land as a park, on the other hand, would be a sound way of confirming our condition as good ol' country-town Newcastle.
Herald letter writer Denis Hainsworth proposed the idea of a park on the site a month ago. "Instead of a high-rise, wouldn't it be fantastic to have a large park that would provide much-needed green space in this part of the city?" he wrote.
And my fellow Herald columnist John Tierney took up the cause in an article on Tuesday, saying that the land could "provide critically needed open green space for the series of tower apartment buildings, some over 20 storeys, that have been built or are now under construction on nearby land in Newcastle West."
Yes, the idea is appealing. But putting a park anywhere is always appealing.
Show me a site in Newcastle where people would disagree with the statement "Wouldn't it be nice to have a park here."
No one ever challenges a statement that a park is "needed". But the area that we set aside for parks is always a matter of balance. And not even inner-city Newcastle is in danger of under-doing that balance.
The new core of the city centre is rising around the interchange. The most intense part will be from Tudor Street to Bank Corner; it's intended to extend towards the harbour through the HQ site.
All this is as close as 150 metres from enormous National Park, 23 hectares of green space, about as big as 400 suburban residential lots.
Just 600 metres west of the interchange is splendid Wickham Park, which is cut off from the city now but should become accessible as redevelopment proceeds.
The harbour itself offers open space. We can't walk on it, but we can walk beside it under trees that have hardly begun to grow. No one living or working around the new city centre will feel a lack of open space.
As John Tierney says, we should have had more open space along the harbourfront. But the state government, working with Newcastle council, has stuffed up Honeysuckle good and proper with the damnable concrete canyon and by failing to adequately connect the redevelopment zone with Hunter Street.
Now we must not fail to make the best use of the Honeysuckle land that we have left: HQ.
It must be a site for buildings because it would connect the new city-centre core with the water, making it much more alluring to go into town.
In attracting people, it should breathe more life into the rest of Honeysuckle.
HQ is right next to the interchange. We must maximise the use of our central railway station with its integrated tramline and bus terminal.
Apartment buildings, hotels, offices and shops would do that. A park wouldn't.
In extending development to the water, HQ will at last provide a bit of depth to our inconveniently skinny city centre, which has always imposed long walking distances.
HQ will also offer a visual spectacle - not just for us to admire but for outsiders to notice, letting them know that, actually, we're not another country town in "regional Australia".
Its effect on our national image should be enormous. That would attract more investment and jobs.
This aspect of HQ must not be underestimated. And we cannot achieve the same effect anywhere else on the harbour, because this is the last site.
Now, there are two little opportunities for enlarging inner-city park space near the interchange that we should seize - not because we really need to, but because we can.
When King Street was extended through poor old Birdwood Park in 1973, we were left with two fragments of open space that are barely more than traffic islands.
On their north sides is King Street, and on the south sides each has a road that we could abolish. We'd greatly improve the little parks by adding the widths of those roads to them.
The roads aren't needed because the adjoining sites, including the western part of Marketown, also front Parry Street.
One of these fragmentary parks is called Little Birdwood Park, a good name that we should keep. The other is merely the "King Street Reserve", a name that we can improve on.
In the 19th century, the AA Company's rail line to its coal mines at Hamilton, including the Borehole No.1 and No.2 pits, passed along what is now the King Street Reserve.
In his book Coal, Railways and Mines, the historian Brian Robert Andrews reprints this report from the Maitland Mercury of 28 March 1857, when horses still hauled the trains:
"A melancholy accident occurred to a boy named Joseph Newman, about 12 years of age, employed on the Borehole road [rail line], on Saturday last. It appears his regular employment was to take out a spare horse about half a mile on the road to meet the loaded trains, and that he then used to ride in on the waggons. On the day in question he had got on the waggons as usual, but it appears he got off again and went for a drink in a house close by. The driver soon after missed him, and looking back saw his body lying along the road."
Little Joseph Newman, horribly injured, appears to have slipped and fallen under a train.
Let's enlarge the King Street Reserve and call it Newman Park.
The idea is appealing, but it would be a colossal mistake. The harbourfront redevelopment site next to Newcastle Interchange should not become a park.
The site is earmarked as the grand finale of the Honeysuckle development, to be called Honeysuckle Quays, or HQ. If the state government doesn't stuff up the project, we will get the spectacle of a tall city centre rising beside the water - smaller than but visually similar to such marvels as Sydney, Hong Kong and New York.
Using the land as a park, on the other hand, would be a sound way of confirming our condition as good ol' country-town Newcastle.
Herald letter writer Denis Hainsworth proposed the idea of a park on the site a month ago. "Instead of a high-rise, wouldn't it be fantastic to have a large park that would provide much-needed green space in this part of the city?" he wrote.
And my fellow Herald columnist John Tierney took up the cause in an article on Tuesday, saying that the land could "provide critically needed open green space for the series of tower apartment buildings, some over 20 storeys, that have been built or are now under construction on nearby land in Newcastle West."
Yes, the idea is appealing. But putting a park anywhere is always appealing.
Show me a site in Newcastle where people would disagree with the statement "Wouldn't it be nice to have a park here."
No one ever challenges a statement that a park is "needed". But the area that we set aside for parks is always a matter of balance. And not even inner-city Newcastle is in danger of under-doing that balance.
The new core of the city centre is rising around the interchange. The most intense part will be from Tudor Street to Bank Corner; it's intended to extend towards the harbour through the HQ site.
All this is as close as 150 metres from enormous National Park, 23 hectares of green space, about as big as 400 suburban residential lots.
Just 600 metres west of the interchange is splendid Wickham Park, which is cut off from the city now but should become accessible as redevelopment proceeds.
The harbour itself offers open space. We can't walk on it, but we can walk beside it under trees that have hardly begun to grow. No one living or working around the new city centre will feel a lack of open space.
As John Tierney says, we should have had more open space along the harbourfront. But the state government, working with Newcastle council, has stuffed up Honeysuckle good and proper with the damnable concrete canyon and by failing to adequately connect the redevelopment zone with Hunter Street.
Now we must not fail to make the best use of the Honeysuckle land that we have left: HQ.
It must be a site for buildings because it would connect the new city-centre core with the water, making it much more alluring to go into town.
In attracting people, it should breathe more life into the rest of Honeysuckle.
HQ is right next to the interchange. We must maximise the use of our central railway station with its integrated tramline and bus terminal.
Apartment buildings, hotels, offices and shops would do that. A park wouldn't.
In extending development to the water, HQ will at last provide a bit of depth to our inconveniently skinny city centre, which has always imposed long walking distances.
HQ will also offer a visual spectacle - not just for us to admire but for outsiders to notice, letting them know that, actually, we're not another country town in "regional Australia".
Its effect on our national image should be enormous. That would attract more investment and jobs.
This aspect of HQ must not be underestimated. And we cannot achieve the same effect anywhere else on the harbour, because this is the last site.
Now, there are two little opportunities for enlarging inner-city park space near the interchange that we should seize - not because we really need to, but because we can.
When King Street was extended through poor old Birdwood Park in 1973, we were left with two fragments of open space that are barely more than traffic islands.
On their north sides is King Street, and on the south sides each has a road that we could abolish. We'd greatly improve the little parks by adding the widths of those roads to them.
The roads aren't needed because the adjoining sites, including the western part of Marketown, also front Parry Street.
One of these fragmentary parks is called Little Birdwood Park, a good name that we should keep. The other is merely the "King Street Reserve", a name that we can improve on.
In the 19th century, the AA Company's rail line to its coal mines at Hamilton, including the Borehole No.1 and No.2 pits, passed along what is now the King Street Reserve.
In his book Coal, Railways and Mines, the historian Brian Robert Andrews reprints this report from the Maitland Mercury of 28 March 1857, when horses still hauled the trains:
"A melancholy accident occurred to a boy named Joseph Newman, about 12 years of age, employed on the Borehole road [rail line], on Saturday last. It appears his regular employment was to take out a spare horse about half a mile on the road to meet the loaded trains, and that he then used to ride in on the waggons. On the day in question he had got on the waggons as usual, but it appears he got off again and went for a drink in a house close by. The driver soon after missed him, and looking back saw his body lying along the road."
Little Joseph Newman, horribly injured, appears to have slipped and fallen under a train.
Let's enlarge the King Street Reserve and call it Newman Park.
The idea is appealing, but it would be a colossal mistake. The harbourfront redevelopment site next to Newcastle Interchange should not become a park.
The site is earmarked as the grand finale of the Honeysuckle development, to be called Honeysuckle Quays, or HQ. If the state government doesn't stuff up the project, we will get the spectacle of a tall city centre rising beside the water - smaller than but visually similar to such marvels as Sydney, Hong Kong and New York.
Using the land as a park, on the other hand, would be a sound way of confirming our condition as good ol' country-town Newcastle.
Herald letter writer Denis Hainsworth proposed the idea of a park on the site a month ago. "Instead of a high-rise, wouldn't it be fantastic to have a large park that would provide much-needed green space in this part of the city?" he wrote.
And my fellow Herald columnist John Tierney took up the cause in an article on Tuesday, saying that the land could "provide critically needed open green space for the series of tower apartment buildings, some over 20 storeys, that have been built or are now under construction on nearby land in Newcastle West."
Yes, the idea is appealing. But putting a park anywhere is always appealing.
Show me a site in Newcastle where people would disagree with the statement "Wouldn't it be nice to have a park here."
No one ever challenges a statement that a park is "needed". But the area that we set aside for parks is always a matter of balance. And not even inner-city Newcastle is in danger of under-doing that balance.
The new core of the city centre is rising around the interchange. The most intense part will be from Tudor Street to Bank Corner; it's intended to extend towards the harbour through the HQ site.
All this is as close as 150 metres from enormous National Park, 23 hectares of green space, about as big as 400 suburban residential lots.
Just 600 metres west of the interchange is splendid Wickham Park, which is cut off from the city now but should become accessible as redevelopment proceeds.
The harbour itself offers open space. We can't walk on it, but we can walk beside it under trees that have hardly begun to grow. No one living or working around the new city centre will feel a lack of open space.
As John Tierney says, we should have had more open space along the harbourfront. But the state government, working with Newcastle council, has stuffed up Honeysuckle good and proper with the damnable concrete canyon and by failing to adequately connect the redevelopment zone with Hunter Street.
Now we must not fail to make the best use of the Honeysuckle land that we have left: HQ.
It must be a site for buildings because it would connect the new city-centre core with the water, making it much more alluring to go into town.
In attracting people, it should breathe more life into the rest of Honeysuckle.
HQ is right next to the interchange. We must maximise the use of our central railway station with its integrated tramline and bus terminal.
Apartment buildings, hotels, offices and shops would do that. A park wouldn't.
In extending development to the water, HQ will at last provide a bit of depth to our inconveniently skinny city centre, which has always imposed long walking distances.
HQ will also offer a visual spectacle - not just for us to admire but for outsiders to notice, letting them know that, actually, we're not another country town in "regional Australia".
Its effect on our national image should be enormous. That would attract more investment and jobs.
This aspect of HQ must not be underestimated. And we cannot achieve the same effect anywhere else on the harbour, because this is the last site.
Now, there are two little opportunities for enlarging inner-city park space near the interchange that we should seize - not because we really need to, but because we can.
When King Street was extended through poor old Birdwood Park in 1973, we were left with two fragments of open space that are barely more than traffic islands.
On their north sides is King Street, and on the south sides each has a road that we could abolish. We'd greatly improve the little parks by adding the widths of those roads to them.
The roads aren't needed because the adjoining sites, including the western part of Marketown, also front Parry Street.
One of these fragmentary parks is called Little Birdwood Park, a good name that we should keep. The other is merely the "King Street Reserve", a name that we can improve on.
In the 19th century, the AA Company's rail line to its coal mines at Hamilton, including the Borehole No.1 and No.2 pits, passed along what is now the King Street Reserve.
In his book Coal, Railways and Mines, the historian Brian Robert Andrews reprints this report from the Maitland Mercury of 28 March 1857, when horses still hauled the trains:
"A melancholy accident occurred to a boy named Joseph Newman, about 12 years of age, employed on the Borehole road [rail line], on Saturday last. It appears his regular employment was to take out a spare horse about half a mile on the road to meet the loaded trains, and that he then used to ride in on the waggons. On the day in question he had got on the waggons as usual, but it appears he got off again and went for a drink in a house close by. The driver soon after missed him, and looking back saw his body lying along the road."
Little Joseph Newman, horribly injured, appears to have slipped and fallen under a train.
Let's enlarge the King Street Reserve and call it Newman Park.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
4 days ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Why do the rich always have to be so loud about it?
Does anybody who is honest ever buy a Lamborghini? The only time the car rates a mention in the pages of this newspaper, it seems, are in stories written by the crime reporter. The person in question often also owns a Rolex watch. And a gold chain. Perhaps the police could triangulate the owners of all three and arrest the lot on 'suspicion of … well, just suspicion'. Conspicuous consumption, of course, is back in fashion: witness the Bezos wedding. As sequels go, Jeff in Venice was even sadder than Death in Venice. A man notorious for underpaying his workers – and for making them walk at a near-jog called 'Amazon pace' – wanted to show off the wealth that had resulted. He also made sure it was in sight of the cameras, so the world could see his triumph. Meanwhile, there were reports this week about the funeral, some months ago, of a Melbourne criminal. It's emerged that his body was transferred, at the last minute, into a golden coffin. His friends, apparently, thought the wooden one in which he'd been delivered sent the wrong message. Appearances are everything, it seems, even when you are dead. The wealthy didn't always behave like this. Many decades ago, as the Herald's correspondent in the UK, I had the chance to interview the occasional member of the aristocracy. Over time, I developed what I called 'the threadbare carpet index', which enabled me to guess the wealth and status of my subject to the nearest fraction of a baronet. The more threadbare the carpet, the larger the estate. If you could see the floorboards through the holes, they'd own half of Scotland. They all drove beaten-up Land Rovers, right up to and including the Queen. If I were lucky enough to score a cup of tea, the accompanying biscuits would be a supermarket own-brand. The blokes had patches sewn onto their jackets to cover the bit where the elbows had worked their way through. I guess they were just saving up to pay for new plumbing in the east wing, but I still found the attitude refreshing. You had the feeling they'd rather drop dead than buy a new shirt. Maybe they agreed with Henry David Thoreau: 'Beware all enterprises which require new clothes'. This was long before the era of the $100,000 handbag, but had I predicted its existence, they'd have laughed out loud. They would regard such an object as 'vulgar' or 'ostentatious' and, moreover, a sign that the purchaser had lost their tiny mind. In fact, the more useless watches have become – superseded by our devices – the more they have become a signifier of wealth. I wonder, sometimes, whether those so keen on ostentatious consumption are aware that not everyone is cheering them on in the manner they so keenly desire. When an expensive sports car pulls up next to you at the traffic lights, a young man at the wheel, what's your first thought?
The Age
4 days ago
- The Age
Why do the rich always have to be so loud about it?
Does anybody who is honest ever buy a Lamborghini? The only time the car rates a mention in the pages of this newspaper, it seems, are in stories written by the crime reporter. The person in question often also owns a Rolex watch. And a gold chain. Perhaps the police could triangulate the owners of all three and arrest the lot on 'suspicion of … well, just suspicion'. Conspicuous consumption, of course, is back in fashion: witness the Bezos wedding. As sequels go, Jeff in Venice was even sadder than Death in Venice. A man notorious for underpaying his workers – and for making them walk at a near-jog called 'Amazon pace' – wanted to show off the wealth that had resulted. He also made sure it was in sight of the cameras, so the world could see his triumph. Meanwhile, there were reports this week about the funeral, some months ago, of a Melbourne criminal. It's emerged that his body was transferred, at the last minute, into a golden coffin. His friends, apparently, thought the wooden one in which he'd been delivered sent the wrong message. Appearances are everything, it seems, even when you are dead. The wealthy didn't always behave like this. Many decades ago, as the Herald's correspondent in the UK, I had the chance to interview the occasional member of the aristocracy. Over time, I developed what I called 'the threadbare carpet index', which enabled me to guess the wealth and status of my subject to the nearest fraction of a baronet. The more threadbare the carpet, the larger the estate. If you could see the floorboards through the holes, they'd own half of Scotland. They all drove beaten-up Land Rovers, right up to and including the Queen. If I were lucky enough to score a cup of tea, the accompanying biscuits would be a supermarket own-brand. The blokes had patches sewn onto their jackets to cover the bit where the elbows had worked their way through. I guess they were just saving up to pay for new plumbing in the east wing, but I still found the attitude refreshing. You had the feeling they'd rather drop dead than buy a new shirt. Maybe they agreed with Henry David Thoreau: 'Beware all enterprises which require new clothes'. This was long before the era of the $100,000 handbag, but had I predicted its existence, they'd have laughed out loud. They would regard such an object as 'vulgar' or 'ostentatious' and, moreover, a sign that the purchaser had lost their tiny mind. In fact, the more useless watches have become – superseded by our devices – the more they have become a signifier of wealth. I wonder, sometimes, whether those so keen on ostentatious consumption are aware that not everyone is cheering them on in the manner they so keenly desire. When an expensive sports car pulls up next to you at the traffic lights, a young man at the wheel, what's your first thought?
Sydney Morning Herald
6 days ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Chalmers needs to show some courage to help save Australian economy
For the first Albanese government timidity resulted in another bite of the cherry. But, unfortunately, caution is lingering as a second-term hallmark, despite a massive landslide that gave Labor open slather to effect wide-ranging change. This month's Economic Reform Roundtable should have been the vehicle for substantial reform. But, amid the Productivity Commission recommendations for tax reform, unions calling for curbs on negative gearing, the capital gains discount and the use of family trusts, business groups railing against too much change and suggestions that the transition from fossil fuels to renewables be speeded up, the government appears to have lost some chutzpah. A day after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese talked down the roundtable's significance, Treasurer Jim Chalmers also started hosing down expectations, sending a clear message around parliament: excited observers should curb their enthusiasm. Beginning on August 19, the three-day Economic Reform Roundtable aims to build consensus on ways to improve productivity, enhance economic resilience and strengthen budget sustainability in the face of global uncertainty. It brings together a mix of leaders from business, unions, civil society and government. Some 900 submissions have been received and anticipations of change were running high. But the Herald' s chief political correspondent Paul Sakkal said cabinet had become concerned about the huge expectations stoked, and the summit is expected to produce a handful of policies to which Chalmers would immediately commit. Speedier approvals for energy projects, cutting red tape and new incentives for home building were seen as quick wins with wide support from warring unions and business lobbies. More significant changes that gain support from assorted experts, captains of industry and unions will be put off for further examination. The roundtable was already seen at risk of becoming a Canberra gabfest. But tax will undoubtedly be the elephant in the room, given Albanese's refusal to consider changing the GST, a veto that is already tying one of the government's hands behind its back. The exclusion of those major players in taxation and deregulation, states and territories, is another handicap. For a summit considering Australia's economic future, ignoring the GST seems blinkered, especially as economist Richard Holden and independent MHR Kate Chaney suggested to the Herald 's Shane Wright that a 15 per cent GST could deliver a $28 billion boost to government coffers while providing an annual $3300 rebate to all Australians as an offset. However, almost all other taxes are on the table. The Productivity Commission has proposed a company tax cut for smaller businesses, while larger companies pay more. New visions are required in a world where old certainties are quickly fading, and the one reality is that productivity is key to meeting future challenges. That said, courage and big ideas – including controversial reform of the GST – will help drive the Australian economy, not the risk aversion displayed by a Labor government too afraid for, or of, its own mandate to act for the greater good.
