Parramatta Debate - Where Prose uncovers lack of depth of would be commentators
I was shocked to read recently the words of Elizabeth Farrelly (Parramatta should be our jewel but we've trashed its treasures, 13/6/2020)
"Her main street stretches taut between a mighty river to the north and a great rail line to the south, stitching a fine little square into a grid sequinned with quality heritage buildings."
Does Ms Farrelly know that the great railway line dissected the park after the formation of the first Parramatta Park trust? So is Ms Farrelly saying that progressive outcomes like transport can make a city great? Or would Ms Farrelly have campaigned against the great rail line to preserve the entirety of Parramatta Park?
Examining the Prose of Ms Farrelly only goes to show that her understanding of what makes a city great is shallow. A city is great by what is created for future generations as much as what is kept of its past. In her own words, the great rail line to the south, created early in Parramatta's history, has allowed it to become what it is today. Likewise, the major projects of today will keep building Parramatta as the great city at the centre of metropolitan heart of NSW.
? Parramatta Light Rail ??
? Powerhouse Museum ??
? Sydney Metro West ??