Talking Point: Why UTAS city shift is a smart move

HENRY REYNOLDS: I was at the university when it moved to Sandy Bay and the move back to town makes sense

I HAVE read with interest the criticism of the university’s planned move into the city centre which has appeared in the Mercury’s correspondence columns. The conviction of the writers is clear but their arguments are unconvincing. And why now I wondered? The re-urbanisation started some time ago.

The Art School, the Conservatorium of Music, the Media School, the Menzies Centre, the School of Nursing and Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS) have all found their place in the city without obvious public disquiet or disruption.

I am personally delighted with recently announced plans to continue this migration from Sandy Bay.

Unlike many critics of the relocation I was at the university when the move to Sandy Bay was made. I had four years as an undergraduate on the Domain and then two years a little later as a postgraduate at Sandy Bay.

Like many of my contemporaries I felt the move into suburbia was a mistake. For all sorts of reasons it was far better being on the edge of the city than ‘down the bay.’ But there was also the fact that the university was vacating the one building of historical interest they had ever owned. It was, as well, turning its back on over a hundred years of educational heritage. Domain House, as it is now known, was a highly significant secondary school from 1850 to 1892 and then at the heart of the university for 70 years until 1962.

At the time the suburbanisation of tertiary education was under way all over Australia. New universities were springing up in the capital cities and in major regional towns. Most of them were established on large greenfield sites well away from city centres. The disadvantages of these sites have become obvious over the past 50 or so years. Practically all the new universities have moved at least part of their operations into the city centres or much closer than was originally the case. The benefit of having premises there is now so obvious that it is taken for granted.

BACK TO THE FUTURE: Looking towards the city from Glebe, with Domain House at far left and Philip Smith Centre at right.

While I had considerable doubt about the original plans to move the STEM subjects into town I am strongly supportive of the decision to bring Arts, Law and Education back into the city where they had always been and just as clearly belonged.

The reoccupation of the Domain site is especially to be applauded. The synergy between cities and intellectual and artistic endeavour has long been self-evident. The plan to bring the University Library into the city is an exciting prospect. An accompanying city square will be an additional attraction. They will be gifts to the city of immeasurable benefit, ones which will display to the world Hobart’s claim to being a significant intellectual centre but above all a great city of literature. I cannot imagine why anyone of goodwill would oppose the development. But it presents the university with a new and significant challenge. It must take responsibility for what will be a major contribution to the fabric of the city and the resulting streetscape. Chosen architects will have to design buildings which are both distinguished in themselves and sympathetic with the city’s built heritage.

The continuing appeal of the Sandy Bay campus, though understandable to those who spent formative years there, has always escaped me. The generous space, lauded in some recent letters to the editor, may benefit leg muscles and even lungs but its intellectual benefit is not immediately apparent. More to the point there is scarcely a single building of architectural distinction on the whole campus. The suggestion of some recent correspondents to refurbish the now ageing and all too often pedestrian structures because the university is incapable of doing better with new buildings in the city is particularly perverse.

It is hard to find cogent reasons why Hobart itself will not be the better for the increasing university involvement in the development of the central business district. There are at present numerous rundown neighbourhoods in and near the city. The contemporary unstoppable rise of e-commerce makes it less and less likely that the retail sector can lead the required renewal. Nor will there be any sudden upsurge in inner-city government expenditure. Office buildings are more likely to find new homes on cheaper land in Glenorchy or Kingborough. And then there are great advantages which arise from providing student residences in the city centre. After 5pm when offices and shops close and commuters return home to the suburbs the city dies. Night-life has migrated to North Hobart and the waterfront. And while there will be an increase in the building of inner city apartments nothing can compare with the vitality which can be provided by a rapid build-up of student accommodation. Many university towns in Europe and America provide instructive examples of how student residents can vivify city centres. A good Australasian example is Dunedin, with a large resident student population which gives a small isolated city a strong sense of intellectual and cultural vitality.

So I for one strongly support the planned return to the city. It will mark the opening of an exciting new era in the history of both the university and of Hobart itself.

Henry Reynolds is an Honorary Research Professor at the University of Tasmania and author of many books including 2012’s A History of Tasmania.