Letters to the editor

I have much sympathy for the Rushcutters Bay residents in their attempts to prevent the concreting of their local park. The Council seems to be hell-bent on covering over what remains of our green spaces – in the name of increased access. It probably also reduces maintenance costs – less lawn to mow. In Pyrmont we have so much access through our new park, it’s won an award for excellence from the Cement Industry! Whilst concrete is a necessary evil in building construction, its increasing use in parks is unnecessary, unaesthetic, expensive, and detrimental in the following ways.

Firstly, it reduces the ground area which can absorb rainwater. Secondly, cement manufacture is one of the biggest generators of carbon emissions – 6 percent globally. Council’s prolific use of concrete in its parks goes against its Sustainable Sydney 2030 credentials.

Concrete should be kept to an absolute minimum in our parks – just enough to ensure access for the disabled and recreational cyclists (not the lycra-clad hoons). I suggest that Rushcutters Bay residents sit down with Council planners to find a solution that keeps Rushcutters Bay Park green and informal. This might even result in cost savings to ratepayers.

Elizabeth Elenius, Pyrmont

Thank you for your article ‘Residents rally to reclaim Rushcutters’ in City News, 8 April edition.

I would like to lend my support to the views expressed about the importance of preserving the natural features of the park as part of the foreshore upgrade at Rushcutters Bay. I welcome improvements regarding lighting and water management and judicious use of paths to enhance access to amenities. But I’m concerned at the extent of concrete paving in the proposed upgrade, and the removal of a heritage feature. Let’s not disturb those features already valued by the community.

The new pathway at the park’s northern end will cut straight through a favoured sunbaking section. Sunbakers are attracted to this area because it’s a peaceful grassy corner with a lovely sunny aspect, offering privacy as well as shade if required. Constructing a concrete walkway through this area will effectively end this past time, as there is no where else in the park offering these combined features. It will also impact negatively on picnickers. It’s not clear why this pathway is part of the plan as there will be access to the waters edge via another path tracking the perimeter of the foreshore wall. It’s at odds with the Council’s claim that the upgrade ‘…will increase useable green space … while maintaining the heritage and amenity of the park’.

The removal of the charming small roundabout surrounded by a little green hedge along the footpath between the grandstand and the water is also not consistent with the Council’s guiding objectives for this project.

Mary McCarter, Elizabeth Bay