• Albert Speer, Hitler and their designs, buildings . . . and Speer’s battle with truth
“Yet I am fairly certain that I was artist enough to have given up all the power in the world without regrets if a single perfect building had been granted me, perfect as the Pantheon, the dome of St Peters . . . to enter history with such a building - that was the ambition that impelled me . . .” p 426
Spandau - the secret diaries by Albert Speer
In her compelling biography of Albert Speer - his battle with Truth, Gitta Sereny re-tells a story Speer told her about his plans for some grand buildings and avenues in Berlin, Germany.
“He stood and looked at the model for a long moment. Then he said, ‘You’ve all gone completely insane’, and walked out.”
Albert Speer – his battle with truth, Gitta Sereny p158
According to NSW government data estimates, the climate pollution in 2019 from the local government area of Sydney City Council, within which the project is located, was 983,649 tonnes a year.
“The great public project is distinguished by its generosity, its taking on of a civic role largely independent of its host building or room.”
Public Sydney by Philip Thallis, Peter John Cantrill, 2013 p17
This is the problem:
A major city plan for 24 hectares of public land in the centre of Sydney has significant flaws because it assumes without a scientific basis that a business as usual approach may be taken and it displays:
• an intention not to quantify climate pollution to be caused by building the site infrastructure
• no measurable goal or limit to climate pollution
• no explanation of what is meant by ‘net zero” and how its to be achieved.
———
A model was made for Hitler and others to consider the look, scale and size of the plans to rebuild Berlin.
For the opening display of the model Speer invited his father.
“And Speer’s architect father, by then seventy-five years old and retired, was even more disapproving [than another architect, Tessenow] when Speer took him to see the model of Berlin. . . .
. . . He stood and looked at the model for a long moment. Then he said, ‘You’ve all gone completely insane’, and walked out.”
Sereny writes that Speer said,
“At that time I was so blinded, I just attributed his reaction to the generation gap. As far as I was concerned I was following my brief, which was to interpret the political spirit of the time. . . .”. P 158
The key difference between city plans and work by consultants anywhere on Earth today, September, 2022 and those plans for Berlin in 1938 is an existential difference.
Earth’s climate is collapsing significantly due to pollution by humans from their developments.
On 5 April 2022 the UN report and the IPCC report warned:
“In the scenarios we assessed, limiting warming to around 1.5°C (2.7°F) requires global greenhouse gas emissions to peak before 2025 at the latest, and be reduced by 43 per cent by 2030; at the same time, methane would also need to be reduced by about a third. Even if we do this, it is almost inevitable that we will temporarily exceed this temperature threshold but could return to C below it by the end of the century.
“It’s now or never, if we want to limit global warming to 1.5°C (2.7°F) … Without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors, it will be impossible.”
Consultants design, build, obtain approvals for and are the technical enablers of coal and gas mines, new suburbs, roads and developments that make, re-make and expand our cities and change our countrysides.
We may ask the same question about consultants developing Earth’s cities and resources as Gitta Serenye asked about the architect Speer and sought to answer in her book:
Q: “ . . . what I felt neither the Nuremberg trial nor his books had really told us was how a man of such quality could become not immoral, not amoral, but, somehow infinitely worse, morally extinguished.” P 10
The question is prompted by a proposal by the NSW government to rezone 24 hectares of public land at Central Railway in Sydney to build a deck over 14 train platforms and on the deck build about 16 high rise buildings for hotels, offices and some housing. The proposal seeks to deliver about 16,000 jobs in commercial, retail, education and hotel sectors and occupies about 24 hectares of land presently owned by the public but, unlike the plans for Berlin, that public land is to be leased and sold to the private sector.
Other questions about the conduct of the consultants working for the government on this proposal are:
Q
How could the proposal documents not refer to the UN and IPCC reports of 5 April 2022 and to some of the almost daily new science showing climate change pollution from human developments is causing a cascade of floods, rising seas, droughts, food shortages, energy and food prices increases?
Q
How could the engineers, architects, planners, specialists in sustainability and the many dozens of people involved with the 6,000 pages of consultant reports not have known about the UN and IPCC reports of 5 April 2022? Or, did and do they know but have chosen to remain silent?
• The existential threat of climate pollution is in daily news worldwide
The new 2022 Prime Minister of Australia and federal government ran a national federal election campaign for the last couple of years about climate change during which lengthy period the proposal and technical documents were being researched and written by consultants.
There is a live and changing public debate within the local council, Sydney City Council, about whether climate pollution in the city should end by 2030 or 2035.
In this context how can the State government and its consultants seriously expect the Council to ignore that debate and its climate goals and superimpose different, conflicting goals over them for this site which speak variously of net zero climate pollution by 2050?
What are the duties of engineers?
The body representing most engineers in Australia, Engineers Australia, has a Code of Ethics which states that members will:
“4 Promote sustainability
4.1 Engage responsibly with the community and other stakeholders
4.2 Practise engineering to foster the health, safety and wellbeing of the community and the environment
4.3 Balance the needs of the present with the needs of future generations.”
How have the consultants not mentioned that five months ago, on 5 April 2022, the United Nations and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said that if we humans are to prevent out of control climate collapse then the timetable is:
“greenhouse gas emissions to peak before 2025 at the latest, and be reduced by 43 per cent by 2030”
No project consultant documents mention the UN April 2022 reports or their scientific message that climate pollution must peak before 2025.
The project consultants don’t quantify the significant new climate pollution to be caused by the project which is anticipated to take 20 years to build.
None of the science and solutions in the United Nations report of 5 April 2022, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report are referred to in the three key documents - the Planning Report, Explanation of intended effects, Design Guide.
Nor are the UN and IPCC reports referred to in technical documents about sustainability: Environmental Sustainability Study, Green Infrastructure Report, Water Quality, flooding and stormwater reports (2021 and 2022).
The Planning Report document, also called, State Significant Precinct Study, says the project will achieve ‘net zero emissions by 2050’ but does not say how or when emissions will reduce:
“In accordance with the NSW Government’s aspirations and the directions, the proposal seeks to create a low carbon precinct that achieves net zero emissions by 2050.” At p 48
A design difference between the Sydney project today and the 1938 Berlin project is that today’s plans diminish existing public space and remove sunlight from much of it.
• The open, sunlit public land and 14 platforms will be built over for about 16 private buildings, turning the platforms and 24 hectares of public land into tunnels
Inside Central Station the view of the sky will be lost from the Grand Concourse and 14 station platforms.
• I took this photo last week of the view along platforms from Grand Concourse, Central Railway with sunlit platforms, open sky and air - the consultants and government plan to build a deck over these platforms and put about 16 buildings on top covering 24 hectares of public land
• This image of looking into the Grand Concourse from a tunnel prompts the question; what is the view to the rear, looking back into the tunnels where there is no sunlight, open sky?
• Platform 1 with open sky, where deck will be built over and buildings built on top of the deck
• A couple of the 14 rail platforms to be built over with a deck and buildings placed on the deck
The project will build a platform over 14 of the 25 public train platforms which are presently sunlit and open to air. They and the public there will be permanently shaded by new private buildings and a deck above the platforms and from the Concourse several hundred metres to the south west.
Construction of lightwells to keep light and air to the buried platforms and Concourse is unlikely or infeasible.
The political spirit today in the proposal for grand buildings resembles the 1938 spirit for its grandiosity with a key difference; private not public buildings are proposed on public land.
Significantly, public use, natural light and space is to be reduced or terminated for 14 rail platforms. The 14 platforms may legitimately be counted as valuable public space and presently afford waiting and alighting passengers an inviting and civilized experience.
The public estate is being sold and ownership is being privatised by sale or lease – the tenure details are not given in the project documents and nothing is said of the sale prices or process. The public costs and benefits of tenure and finance are not in the documents.
Fortunately, today’s political spirit is for the moment a more liberal one than in Germany in 1938 and opinions may be freely exchanged and critical views expressed.
How much climate change pollution will there be?
According to NSW government data estimates, the climate pollution in 2019 from the local government area of Sydney City Council, within which the project is located, is 983,649 tonnes a year. The estimates are low as they do not include data of the climate and other (water, soil, air) pollution from waste and waste water.
It was estimated in 2007 that the Central Park project’s six high rise buildings would add 0.46% greenhouse climate pollution to the City of Sydney local government area (report by Day accepted by Land and Environment Court – see Drake Brockman case, below).
Using those calculations and with some 15 buildings plus a several hectare deck to support them it may be estimated that the project construction will add around 3 to 5 % climate greenhouse pollution to the local government area.
Consultants who wrote the Environmental Sustainability, Climate Change and Waste Management Study do not quantify climate pollution or avoidance in the construction of the deck, the infrastructure and buildings.
The construction timeline suggests several years up to around a decade of construction is planned to set up the infrastructure before buildings can be built (see, Indicative staging strategy, p152 of the Urban Design Framework).
It’s hard for me to read documents about the environment where climate pollution from several years – about ten years - of construction of the new infrastructure and deck above the platforms through to the 2030s is not quantified, nor is the construction climate pollution quantified that then will follow that foundation work.
The proponent informed an online meeting of the timetable on Wednesday 7 September 2022 with words to the effect,
“upgrading the transport and other infrastructure and building the deck would be completed by the early 2030s” (at about 640 pm – note screenshot below, and recording here)
Quantification of climate pollution and avoidance may happen from the method of construction of the buildings and when they are operational but the documents are unclear as this extract from the public online meeting shows – see Endnote 2:
“• Net zero precinct and buildings from day one“
p 15, Environmental Sustainability, Climate Change and Waste Management Study
“Day one” is not defined to the best of my knowledge in the documents, nor is “Net zero’ climate pollution.
In the public online meeting ‘carbon offsets’ were mentioned by Nicholas Woolf, Project Manager, as one way climate pollution would be managed.
I can find no explanation of this in the documents. Carbon pollution offsets are widely regarded as open to fraud, ineffective and the Australian government this year began reviewing them to discover a solution.
On 30 August 2022 the NSW Auditor General reported that the state’s offsets scheme has fundamentally failed to design or implement an effective scheme for biodiversity offsets.
There is no quantification of existing climate pollution at Central.
Without such basic baseline data its difficult to take the documents seriously, including claims for it to be a “net zero’ project.
In the Rocky Hill Case (referred to below) the court held it was irrelevant that the project contributed a small fraction of the global total of GHG emissions and that observation is relevant to the proposed project at Central.
Some leading court decisions about climate change pollution and how to deal with it under the NSW planning legislation apply to the proposal. It seems to me the process thus far may breach the planning legislation and the potential exists for litigation similar to that which occurred over the Central Park state development (I was involved in constructing that litigation; see below, 5 Beneficial impact of public participation – Central Park).
In the Rocky Hill decision of the Land and Environment Court, Gloucester Resources Limited v Minister for Planning [2019] NSWLEC 7, the Court indicated that the following factors must be considered when applying the precautionary principle and assessing the impact of climate pollution:
• Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the development;
• the likely contribution of GHG emissions to climate change;
• the consequences of this contribution to climate change; and
• other impacts of the development.
The Court also held that it was irrelevant that the Project contributed a small fraction of the global total of GHG emissions.
• We humans have ‘til 2025 to reduce carbon pollution or lose the slim remaining potential to slow and reduce the speed of our collapsing climate
The graphic above is one I made in April to sum up the little time left for we humans to save ourselves and our collapsing climate.
IN ITS APRIL 2022 REPORT THE UN SAYS WE HUMANS HAVE 30 MONTHS LEFT TO CUT THE POLLUTION – UNTIL 2025 – WHEN THE IPCC EXPECTS WE WILL LOSE THE SLIGHT REMAINING POTENTIAL TO PREVENT CASCADING, OUT OF CONTROL, CLIMATE COLLAPSE.
As the climate impacts have not been referred to or quantified, the project may breach the precautionary principle in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1978 and render the project subject to legal challenge. The Act does not restrict assessments to land use aspects such as zoning, building height, floor space ratios, and heritage. The Act obliges environmental assessments and the application of the precautionary principle for all aspects of all projects whether for a single site or for precincts.
The principles and the trigger by which project proponents are to apply the precautionary principle are set out in the 2005 court decision of Telstra v Hornsby. Some extracts from the case illustrate how, in my view, the precautionary principle has not been applied for the project and there appears to be a possible breach of planning legislation:
“Conditions precedent or thresholds to application of the precautionary principle
128 The application of the precautionary principle and the concomitant need to take precautionary measures is triggered by the satisfaction of two conditions precedent or thresholds: a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage and scientific uncertainty as to the environmental damage. These conditions or thresholds are cumulative. Once both of these conditions or thresholds are satisfied, a precautionary measure may be taken to avert the anticipated threat of environmental damage, but it should be proportionate . . .
Threat of serious or irreversible damage
129 Two points need to be noted about the first condition precedent that there be a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage. First, it is not necessary that serious or irreversible environmental damage has actually occurred – it is the threat of such damage that is required. Secondly, the environmental damage threatened must attain the threshold of being serious or irreversible.
130 Threats to the environment that should be addressed include direct and indirect threats, secondary and long-term threats and the incremental or cumulative impacts of multiple or repeated actions or decisions. Where threats may interact or be interrelated (for example where action against one threat may exacerbate another threat) they should not be addressed in isolation:
. . .
Scientific uncertainty
140 The second condition precedent required to trigger the application of the precautionary principle and the necessity to take precautionary measures is that there be “a lack of full scientific certainty”. The uncertainty is as to the nature and scope of the threat of environmental damage: Leatch v National Parks and Wildlife Services (1993) 81 LGERA 270 at 282.
141 Assessing the degree of scientific uncertainty also involves a process of analysis of many factors: see A Deville and R Harding, Applying the Precautionary Principle, Federation Press, 1997 at pp. 31-37. The assessment of the degree of uncertainty might include consideration of the following factors:
(a) the sufficiency of the evidence that there might be serious or irreversible environmental harm caused by the development plan, programme or project;
. . .
150 If each of the two conditions precedent or thresholds are satisfied – that is, there is a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage and there is the requisite degree of scientific uncertainty – the precautionary principle will be activated. At this point, there is a shifting of an evidentiary burden of proof. A decision-maker must assume that the threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage is no longer uncertain but is a reality. The burden of showing that this threat does not in fact exist or is negligible effectively reverts to the proponent of the economic or other development plan, programme or project.”
In my view there is a reasonable argument that the project poses a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage, and the burden of showing this threat does not in fact exist or is negligible has reverted to the proponent.
If my view is correct it follows that that burden of proof is not yet discharged. To discharge the duty the proponent would estimate the amount of climate pollution and show how it poses a negligible threat.
An example of how specific design and quantification of risk from climate change is deferred in the documents here are some observations about water:
• In August 2022 science was reported that a minimum sea level rise of 27 cm is guaranteed for Earth’s oceans this century no matter what climate adaption or climate pollution reduction measures are implemented.
• The Urban Design Framework document says (p181):
“Arcadis have prepared the Central Precinct Renewal Water Quality, Flooding and Stormwater Baseline Report (2021) and Central Precinct Renewal Water Quality, Flooding and Stormwater Report (2022) to identify the key issues and recommended strategies for the approach to storm water management and flood risk.”
The key issues quoted on the page (181) do not refer to climate change and the impacts it is having and will have on existing drainage and sewage systems although there are 57 references to “climate change’ in the Arcadis June 2022 report (which does not mention the UN, IPCC reports of 5 April 2022).
The Urban Design Framework document highlights the Arcadis description of the existing storm water and sewage systems thus:
“. . . The current drainage system is dated and generally in poor condition. The location of the drainage infrastructure may also constrain future design and construction of built form, utility servicing, drainage network and flood mitigation impacts.”.
• There is no design that complies with Sydney Environmental Plan 2012 Clause 5.21 which requires designs to be made “taking into account projected changes as a result of climate change”. To comply with this clause the changes to be addressed are those quantified in the UN and IPCC reports of 5 April 2022.
• There is a recommendation in the Arcadis report to carry out such design at some unspecified time in the future (Recommendation 7.2.1, p 70).
True, we are asked to comment on a zoning proposal before specific designs are made to implement it. It’s to be expected some design specifics will be provided later including for water.
But as there’s no quantification of existing and anticipated climate pollution from the project and the impact of cascading climate change the water studies don’t address current climate risks.
I’ve seen sewage and storm water lids in the Broadway road pavement above the intersection of Broadway and Wattle street pop and discharge raw sewage during storms and harbour water level surges.
In the torrential rains of 2022 I’ve seen small flooding creeks form in Buckland Street, Chippendale along the line of the former creek that ran down Buckland street and is now submerged by development (though still flowing underground).
Interestingly, none of the torrential rain this year has left my Chippendale house and I estimate over 60,000 litres of rain that’s overflowed the rain tank has been absorbed on site with a low cost, ancient design called a leaky well. Similar simple, cost effective designs could keep all rainwater on the site and contribute to cooling the area and reducing the urban heat effect there.
Consultants not taking climate change seriously
The conclusion is irresistible that the project proponents and their consultants don’t take climate change seriously and have closed their eyes to how addressing it may affect the project and how the project may need to be amended to meet the science behind the UN and IPCC reports. The proposal has significant flaws because it assumes without a scientific basis that a business as usual approach may be taken and it displays:
• an intention not to quantify climate pollution to be caused by building the site infrastructure
• no measurable goal or limit to climate pollution
• no explanation of what is meant by ‘net zero” and how its to be achieved.
Given the U.N. advice five months ago, it’s foolish to plan to build 14 or so high rise buildings on this key central transport hub without first quantifying the climate pollution of the project and the risks and impacts of increasingly rapid changes to water, temperatures and climate.
Legitimate expectations
There are legitimate expectations for several public interest matters from the project because it is on public land and has been held in public ownership since it was forcibly taken from indigenous people. It’s held on trust for the public good. Things we may legitimately expect include:
• Public comment: A reasonable period for comment; at least 40 days not 20
• Financial transparency: An explanation of what financial and planning benefits are won and lost by selling or leasing the land
• Public land use to be maintained and increased: An increase in public accessibility and public land use
• Maintenance of the open view of the sky and air from the grand course and 14 platforms
• A guarantee that any leasing or sale arrangements will prevent loss of public access such as the loss of public land which occurred when:
o the GPO building was sold and, after tiny part of was used as a post office until the private owner changed their mind, all public access rights were extinguished,
o in the case of the Treasury Building the lease was eventually sold to give the lessee permanent ownership of the land and building.
It’s been written of the site that:
“. . . the strategy . . . turning Devonshire street into a miserable pedestrian tunnel . . .
. . . Central Station continues to demonstrate the challenges of inserting major infrastructure into the city’s layout. A magnificent work of architecture, it is also a blockage, a marooned pathological urban artefact. To fix problems of such scale, interventions of similar scope are needed. Central awaits such an integrative urban project.” P162
Public Sydney – Drawing the city by Philip Thalis, Peter John Cantrill 2013
To sell or lease 24 or so hectares of public land in the centre of Sydney to private interests is for the public to lose it, perhaps for ever to private control.
The public benefits obtained by the sale or lease transaction need to clearly outweigh the loss of the land. Thus there is a legitimate expectation that citizens and bodies such as the local council will be afforded a reasonable period to understand and comment on the proposal and to suggest improvements.
The various codes of ethics of the engineering and design professions differ but in substance are the same, making clear that these professions have duties to the public and the environment, and this is discussed below in relation to potential breaches of the Code of Ethics of Engineers Australia.
Beneficial impact of public participation – Central Park
I was involved in litigation over the Central Park project where a student sued the developer Frasers and the then Minister for Planning because the project had no provision for sustainable use of energy, water or waste. The case is Drake-Brockman V Minister for Planning and Another.
The litigation was withdrawn when the developer agreed to implement 10 of 12 proposals by the litigant to make the project more sustainable. Subsequently, Frasers publicly promoted these aspects of the project.
The point is, public participation and a thorough, robust scrutiny of the project added value to it. The only avoidable cost to the developer and the community of the freely designed and publicly proposed improvements were the entirely avoidable litigation costs it and the community shouldered.
Such participation and publicly proposed design improvements are presently denied this project because of the 20 day display period in which to digest some 6,000 pages of technical material; an impossible task for me as I discovered the project last week.
None of the reports about sustainable issues contain simple, easily implemented, low tech highly sustainable solutions for water, recycled water, energy and food.
Nor are there simple, easy-to-understand measurable goals.
I found such goals helpful when in 1996 for my own project I disconnected my Chippendale house from town water and town sewer and installed solar panels. The goals made it easier to communicate the project to consultants and were:
• No sewage to leave the site
• No stormwater to leave the site
• Self-sufficient for energy using the sun
• Self-sufficient for water using rain water and recycled water
• No toxic materials
The Recommendations propose similar simple and measurable goals to be inserted into the proposed zoning document.
Potential breaches of Engineers Australia Code of Ethics
Let’s compare the ethics of Albert Speer and those contractors who wrote the proposal and technical documents.
The Guidelines for implementing the Code state engineers will:
“4.1 Engage responsibly with the community and other stakeholders
a. be sensitive to public concerns
b. inform employers or clients of the likely consequences of proposed activities on the community and the environment
c. promote the involvement of all stakeholders and the community in decisions and processes that may impact upon them and the environment
4.2 Practise engineering to foster the health, safety and wellbeing of the community and the environment
a. incorporate social, cultural, health, safety, environmental and economic considerations into the engineering task
4.3 Balance the needs of the present with the needs of future generations
a. in identifying sustainable outcomes consider all options in terms of their economic, environmental and social consequences
b. aim to deliver outcomes that do not compromise the ability of future life to enjoy the same or better environment, health, wellbeing and safety as currently enjoyed.”
To ventilate these significant public interest issues this article will be forwarded to Engineers Australia, the body representing some engineers who authored the proposal documents, with an invitation to that body to determine whether the documents demonstrate a breach of the Code of Ethics.
Recommendations
Changes to planning controls are recommended some of which are changes I applied to my own project, Sydney’s Sustainable House, when I made it mostly sustainable in 1996:
1. Nil climate pollution
2. No climate pollution offsets
3. Commencing from publication of the LEP the before, during and after climate pollution will be published monthly for every aspect of the project on websites of Sydney City Council, and a project website
4. Only energy and water harvested onsite, no imported water or energy
5. No sewage or stormwater to leave the site
6. Mains water only for fire prevention
7. No building over the platforms between the Grand Concourse and the western end of the platforms
8. Specify maximum number of car parking spaces and these only for disabled or stop and go deliveries
Reflections and end notes on public domain and private interests
Endnote 1:
These notes about Albert Speer and his battle with truth may help those who wish to reflect on the proposal and what may be driving its form and function.
Spandau - the secret diaries by Albert Speer
During his 20 years (1946 - 1966) inside Spandau Prison Speer wrote a diary which was later published. Two entries at the beginning and towards the end of the diary ‘bookend’ each other and his views of himself. This first one is written 2 October 1946, the day after he received the court’s judgement and sentence:
“My dreams always were concerned with buildings; it was not power I wanted, but to become a second Schinkel . . . I was forty when I was arrested. I’ll be sixty-one when I’m released“.
[Karl Friedrich Shinkel (1781 - 1841) is noted in the book as “the great architect who virtually rebuilt Berlin and Potsdam.”]
Twenty years later Speer writes on 19 February 1964, towards the end of his term there:
“. . . during the war, as armaments minister, I noticed for the first time that power also meant something to me, the ordinary ambition to belong among the actors in historic events . . . Only in retrospect do I become aware that as an architect at Hitler’s side I was also seeking the pleasures of power . . .“. P426
“Yet I am fairly certain that I was artist enough to have given up all the power in the world without regrets if a single perfect building had been granted me, perfect as the Pantheon, the dome of St Peters . . . to enter history with such a building - that was the ambition that impelled me . . .” p 426
End Note 2
Information about climate pollution from the Wednesday online discussion, :
Wednesday q and a: I wrote this:
Please explain what is meant by “day one” in the phrase -
“• Net zero precinct and buildings from day one“
p 15, Environmental Sustainability, Climate Change and Waste Management Study
And where in the documents is that meaning to be found, please?
Emilie Kotz 6:15 pm replied:
Thank you for your question. The aim of the Program is to be net zero from project inception through to design, planning and construction within each of the sub-precincts.
- End -