Published on Archlosophy on 7 December 2025.
These two essays were written for an elective assignment during an in-person class.
Q1: Think about a place in Sydney. Make an argument about a place (eg, brilliant and should be understood and emulated, why, or a dreadful space and should be obliterated, and why). Try to be Truthful, Lean, Engaging, Interesting, Varied, Evocative, Insightful, and offer thoughts that the reader might not expect.
The Magic of the Chinese Garden of Friendship
The Chinese Garden of Friendship is a collaboration project between Guangdong and Sydney. It was constructed in the 1980s as a gift and a testament to the enduring friendship between the two cities. Located in the CBD, it has a magical quality that no other urban space in Sydney does.
Chinese gardens have a circular circulation, a loop. There’s an entrance, but multiple ways to journey through the space. Unlike Japanese gardens, it is never static philosophically- it mirrors the seasons, interacts with natural elements. If visitors fully immerse themselves in it, they can hear it singing to them.
There are design elements within the Garden, like a zig-zag bridge that, as you walk across it, helps to ward off evil. Or the way openings are made in walls, revealing a banana tree or a manicured boulder. You take a break on the ledge, conveniently fixed at 450mm in height, a comfortable ergonomic dimension. Intentional paucity exists here and is encouraged.
The hustle and bustle of city life fades away in the Garden. Be like the wildlife here; koi fish swim lazily under arched bridges, ibises taking a dip in the pond-covered lilies, lizards sunbathing on the pavilion floor metres away from you, unafraid of being themselves. For a moment, you’re simply experiencing space as it is.
Jane Jacobs writes about how planners excel at deductive thinking, while the general public relies on inductive reasoning. This Garden has both qualities. We can explain to visitors the design intent, like how the W Hotel becomes part of the landscape- borrowed landscape, or we can let visitors’ imagination run free, does that building resemble a rock?
Places like the Garden feel like a gem today, beautiful but rare. Ironic, isn’t it, that we have to pay a small fee to enter, but ibises descend into the Garden like free real estate. Perhaps this is real justice; spaces should be less about us and more about them. When we start building more of such magical spaces, I’m confident that truth and beauty will become less subjective and more objective.
Q2: Better cities make better people- yes or no? Please discuss.
Better People Make Better Cities
Better cities do not make us better people; better people make cities better.
Iain Walker, who engages citizens in participatory planning sessions, has said that ‘better politicians’ do not make better cities.’ These decisions and processes come directly from the people. But let’s back up and define what a city is. A city, in all of its convoluted mess and history, is the gathering of people, a hotpot of ideas where dreams take flight and come to die.
Our politicians like to view our cities as a machine- everyone is a cog in the system with a role to play. This mechanistic view of cities is reductionistic; it doesn’t take into account the dynamism of the human race and all of its complexities. Everyday citizens and activists who form the bottom-up approach treat cities as a living system, where it is an outcome-driven approach that can be achieved from their perspective.
Trains failed in the US not because its citizens did not want them, nor did they not fight for them; it failed because its government systems and processes are so complex that regulations were not met, deadlines were stretched, costs skyrocketed, and eventually the initiative was scrapped.
The participatory sessions Walker runs are among the many ways citizens can get involved in creating a better future for themselves. Put people from all walks of life into a room and ask them the toughest questions first. Have them deliberate on the questions, but don’t interfere too much with the process. Occasionally, guide them if necessary, but trust them to reach a reasonable and positive outcome themselves.
The important thing is to have these sessions over a long period of time- at least four months, not weeks, like how many politicians run the sessions. By giving citizens a longer runway, many of their biases correct themselves when they discuss them with fellow citizens. It is not a debate.
Possible suggestions that could come from these sessions include communal plots of land for community gardens. Greenery initiatives not fronted by a politician, but by a child who has yet to fully appreciate the magnitude of her actions, that will one day dawn on her the symbolism and significance, that will replicate the tradition for younger children.
Society grows great when older people plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in. Educate people, let them see their biases, and let them decide a future they want for themselves.
Make people better to make better cities.
Leave a Reply