Manufacturing St Kildaness - and other realities
A response to Julie Szego by Krystyna Kynst

What is 'St Kildaness'? It's a clever, but meaningless, term used to muddy the debate over the proposed development on the St Kilda Triangle foreshore crown land.

The ploy has worked, successfully distracting Age journalist, Julie Szego from exploring bigger issues of local governance, Crown land uses and valid community consultation, in her Triangle musings.

'St Kildaness' is no more than a marketing concept invented by Council to lure development interest in the Triangle site, and to promote the aftermath.

Residents and visitors do not spend hours in cafes pondering the concept of 'St Kildaness'. People who know the essence of St Kilda don't need to define it nor write copious words about it. Only those who come to exploit this part of Melbourne - the developers, the real estate agents, developer-friendly councillors, and their spin-doctors - engage in such meaningless exercises.

Add to this list Julie Szego. Mesmerised by 'St Kildaness', Szego reduces the debate about the future of St Kilda's foreshore Crown land into a battle around the type of consumption that should define St Kilda - tattoo shops or made in China fashion franchises, palm readers or cheap electronics, vintage or pret-a-porter, beer or wine.

That's it. The issue is the Style Wars engulfing St Kilda. From this premise Szego quickly moves to defend the proposed Triangle shopping complex and late night alcohol precinct, regurgitating the statements and views of the developer and Council as her own insights.

She also mirrors their anger at the outspoken middle-class, conveniently ignoring that amongst the protesters are the elderly, the unemployed and the homeless, who wonder what this new Triangle has to offer them. Maybe one need look no further than the developer's arrogance of calling a multi-level food hall a Soup Kitchen. Who will this new eatery cater to? The homeless people who have traditionally found refuge in St Kilda, or the aspirational classes enjoying the frisson of this highly marketable grittiness?

The real story of the Triangle is of a Council that broke a series of promises made to its community, removed the opportunity to have the development plan subjected to independent scrutiny at VCAT, relied on property developers to deliver the public good, and consequently, distorted its planning scheme to approve an over-ambitious commercial vision for a unique and beautifully located foreshore Crown land site.

Szego demonstrates little knowledge of these realities, preferring to cacoon her perspective within Bruce Mutard's comic strip vision of rampant consumption and boozing, commissioned by the architect, developer and Council and drool at the improbability imagined in this cartoon, that Goth rocker Nick Cave might consider the Triangle complex worthy of his presence. Szego calls him an urban icon; but the 'stars', who speak against the development, are derided for delusions of grandeur.

Leaping from comic strip to caricature, she uses the classic tools of propaganda to demonise opponents and trivialise the underlying issues of governance and transparency.

Objectors are stripped of their individuality and humanity, and are portrayed as the 'unchained people', 'shrill detractors', 'quasi apartheid' and 'cashed-up residents'. Complex issues are twisted into 'protecting vested interests', 'settling scores', 'holier-than-though posturing', 'hypocrisy and conceit'.

The manipulation of planning controls, the sham of community consultation and the effective privatisation of unique public land - what does Szego say of this behaviour?

Nothing. Instead she segues into the Council's social housing program, lauding its support for boarding houses to ensure low-income people aren't displaced from the area as gentrification intensifies. So how will the new Triangle development further stem the tide of gentrification?

Surely the challenge is to genuinely tackle housing affordability and expand social housing - rather than using these programs as a cloak to promote the Triangle nightclub and shopping complex.

The challenge also is to change the way public assets and public spaces, essential to Melbourne's liveability, like St Kilda's Triangle, are viewed and renewed.

But the biggest challenge is to remedy the democratic deficit disorder - the process of pretending to listen when the key decisions have already been made - plaguing governments at all levels.

Marginalising opposition, dismissing legitimate concerns, venting anger and spleen on vocal citizens, were tools employed with great effect, but much damage, over the last decade in Australia. Szego continues to use them and our city council silently applauds.

That no one from our elected representatives is shuddering at this abuse of their neighbours, supporters, and ultimately voters, is most telling about the dismal state of our Councillors. Not one Councillor has challenged Szego's character assassination of thousands of their Port Phillip citizens for the crime of speaking out.

'St Kildaness' is an image statement. Dissent, vigilance about the public interest and good governance, however, are central to a robust, contested political culture.

~ Krystyna Kynst

Should I move out of St.Kilda Julie Szego?

I am a married, white, Anglo father of an 18 month old, a family Kevin Rudd would class as rich (household income of >$150,000). I have a career in property development, so am naturally biased towards that side of things. In fact, I actually think it may have a positive effect on the value of my property in the long run.

I don't oppose the Triangle for selfish reasons. I oppose the Triangle for the terrible results it will cause to St.Kilda, the waste of a great opportunity to develop an icon, and the ruinous effects it will have on our everyday life through drunken hoons rampaging our street.

The Council are completely ill equipped to deal with this proposal, and have shown this. In a time when Councillors should be working to resolve this issue properly, people like Dick Gross are patting themselves on the back with payrises.

That's the story Julie Szego.

~ Jamie J

Szego is employed by The Age, she's also linked to Gross and is married to a State Labor politician; where does the AGE stand in all this? Where's the independence of the Fourth Estate? Just asking.

~ Alex Njoo

Why all this talk about St Kilda-ness? There are plenty of details about the proposal that I'd like to improve, but the key issue doesn't get enough attention: This prime Bayside site is Crown land! It is being given to a shopping centre developer on secret terms, following questionable process.

~ Ivor Frischknecht

Julie Szego's piece is a good contribution to the debate. I generally support her views.

Public spaces reinvent themselves over time according to demand. Refer the debate/hysteria around Federation Square. This will be no different.

~ Brian Hinton

"Opponents of the foreshore triangle development are desperately fearful that the suburb will lose its "St Kilda-ness", its grittier edge. But surely clever design and awareness can capture its essence".

I like the last line, and of course it's true. But the design being proposed is far from clever, and even further from capturing the essence of St Kilda.

The article itself reads like someone has taken a brief look at the issues raised, and in a flurry of keyboard strokes come up with a work in support of people they know who are involved or are in favour of the project.

"Yet the self-proclaimed guardians of "St Kilda-ness" mount their attacks against more music venues"

No. We protest against multiple night clubs that by nature do not provide live entertainment. DJ's playing turntables, is not live music.

"I share the protesters concerns about a potential increase in traffic and the risk of a rise in alcohol-induced violence with the arrival of nightclubs with a capacity for 3000 patrons. (The devil will be in the licensing conditions and opening hours.)"

On the money here at least.

"The council now stipulates that only 20% of stores can be national franchises, with fast-food outlets forbidden."

This is a naive view, as any national franchisor seeing the profits to be had could easily mount a challenge through VCAT to amend any permit that prohibited their entry.

The main point that Ms Szego missed was the lack of transparency and public input that created the mounting furore from people from all walks of life and age groups across Melbourne.

A mum and dad trying to secure a financial future by building a dual occupancy on their own land are open to public scrutiny, objection and appeal even from someone a full block away. Yet this development, on Crown Land, land that belongs to all Victorians, is protected against people lodging valid objections.

I have seen a much better designed development vetoed by the municipality I work for as it was just too big. The major built form of the St Kilda Triangle proposal has excessive bulk, and in my view, aesthetically unappealing.

The mums and dads whose simple single storey house in the back yard must be scratching their heads made greyer by the hoops they had to jump through, yet if they were Port Philip residents they would be unable to object to this grand offering.

And that is why so many protest. Simplification of issues, and generalisations of the inhabitants and users of the St Kilda area, won't help.

~ Steve Boyce