SkyscraperCity banner

281 - 288 of 288 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,887 Posts
Discussion Starter #281
Council: Have Your Say


For text use link

however, here is the Plan by Height diagram by State Planning, which, despite the smooth words of council, will be hacked back if history is any indication once council planning is finished with it. Council will aim to chop back towers to 13 storeys but may graciously concede the odd 15 or 20 storey just to show it is not rigid and conservative as many have accused it of being.
I'm cynical for a reason.

252526


Feel free to Have Your Say to help counter balance the usual nimby locals and those helpfully guided by council to demonstrate horror and outrage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Council: Have Your Say


For text use link

however, here is the Plan by Height diagram by State Planning, which, despite the smooth words of council, will be hacked back if history is any indication once council planning is finished with it. Council will aim to chop back towers to 13 storeys but may graciously concede the odd 15 or 20 storey just to show it is not rigid and conservative as many have accused it of being.
I'm cynical for a reason.

View attachment 252526

Feel free to Have Your Say to help counter balance the usual nimby locals and those helpfully guided by council to demonstrate horror and outrage.
Do you really think that 8 x 30+ story towers in just this one part of the redevelopment is the best? Green Sq doesnt even have 8 x 30 story towers. Why not have 30 x 13 story as per CoS rather than 8 x 30? Why is taller always better in your books? If you had your way how many 30+ story towers would you want?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,887 Posts
Discussion Starter #283 (Edited)
Because it opens up the ground level for more open space as well as providing the same number +/- of dwellings.

30 x 13 storeys on a site the size of Waterloo Estate would be horrific - visualise it - shades of the nastier areas of Shanghai. It would be solid walls of 13 storeys an idea that even Clover/council would not tolerate. Why not 30 storey towers in Waterloo Estate as it is closer to the CBD and many suburban centres now have towers of 30 or more storeys? Getting 25 to 28 storey towers in Green Square was a major battle but resulted in more parks and open space.

Green Square currently has 11 buildings of 20 to 28 storeys, with at least 4 more planned.

People go on about towers as though they are inherently bad but there is no evidence that they cause any of the problems some people accuse them of. It's the people in them that are the problem, and the same applies to single storey cottages, but good planning for a better environment requires open space and green space and the best way to achieve that is to go up. Much of the reason people get silly over towers is that they represent a change and most people do not like change which is all very nice for them, but with a growing population and a constant demand for accommodation (COVID-19 will not stop it, just slow it somewhat), and to preserve the outer areas of the city fringe from encroaching even further into native bushland and market gardens (food for the city dwellers), going up it logical.

There is nothing inherently wrong or bad about tall buildings; it is all in the perception and resistance to the unfamiliar, i.e., change.

It has been stated before that Sydney with a population just over 5 million occupies much the same land area as London which has a population of 8 million, and Sydney is and will continue to grow faster than London.

Opposing towers is not rational and it is damaging to the welfare of the greater city, as well as being motivated by ignorance and selfishness at core.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,366 Posts
I would like to clarify my post #278.
When I said the towers do not work I was referring to the people in them and not the towers themselves.
I live in a tower (28 levels but no levels 4, 14 or 24) and there are no problems whatsoever.
 

·
Premium Member
Architecture, Urban Design & Planning
Joined
·
11,400 Posts
I would like to clarify my post #278.
When I said the towers do not work I was referring to the people in them and not the towers themselves.
I live in a tower (28 levels but no levels 4, 14 or 24) and there are no problems whatsoever.
Could you elaborate on this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,366 Posts
Could you elaborate on this?

The welfare housing residents here have a bit of (well publicised) drug problems and some of these residents could rather kindly be described as asocial, in consequence the common areas are sometimes both dangerous and dirty. This leaves the other residents scared, unhappy and wishing other for accomodation; those that live above the very lowest floors are obliged to use the sometimes soiled lifts with persons they might be afraid of.
My own residence is in the CBD and is not welfare related in any way, the comment was intended to point out that towers are not, in themselves, a problem.
 

·
Premium Member
Architecture, Urban Design & Planning
Joined
·
11,400 Posts
Could you elaborate on this?

The welfare housing residents here have a bit of (well publicised) drug problems and some of these residents could rather kindly be described as asocial, in consequence the common areas are sometimes both dangerous and dirty. This leaves the other residents scared, unhappy and wishing other for accomodation; those that live above the very lowest floors are obliged to use the sometimes soiled lifts with persons they might be afraid of.
My own residence is in the CBD and is not welfare related in any way, the comment was intended to point out that towers are not, in themselves, a problem.
This is quite an interesting topic. I remember Jane Jacobs criticising the, back then, newly built public housing estates in the New York City area and the incompatibility of the modernist approach of high rises towers in the park and the type of tenants they were destined to house. Certainly there is some bias, generalisation and stigma associated with this but still, interesting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Because it opens up the ground level for more open space as well as providing the same number +/- of dwellings.

30 x 13 storeys on a site the size of Waterloo Estate would be horrific - visualise it - shades of the nastier areas of Shanghai. It would be solid walls of 13 storeys an idea that even Clover/council would not tolerate. Why not 30 storey towers in Waterloo Estate as it is closer to the CBD and many suburban centres now have towers of 30 or more storeys? Getting 25 to 28 storey towers in Green Square was a major battle but resulted in more parks and open space.

Green Square currently has 11 buildings of 20 to 28 storeys, with at least 4 more planned.

People go on about towers as though they are inherently bad but there is no evidence that they cause any of the problems some people accuse them of. It's the people in them that are the problem, and the same applies to single storey cottages, but good planning for a better environment requires open space and green space and the best way to achieve that is to go up. Much of the reason people get silly over towers is that they represent a change and most people do not like change which is all very nice for them, but with a growing population and a constant demand for accommodation (COVID-19 will not stop it, just slow it somewhat), and to preserve the outer areas of the city fringe from encroaching even further into native bushland and market gardens (food for the city dwellers), going up it logical.

There is nothing inherently wrong or bad about tall buildings; it is all in the perception and resistance to the unfamiliar, i.e., change.

It has been stated before that Sydney with a population just over 5 million occupies much the same land area as London which has a population of 8 million, and Sydney is and will continue to grow faster than London.

Opposing towers is not rational and it is damaging to the welfare of the greater city, as well as being motivated by ignorance and selfishness at core.
Hmm the CoS plan I believe has more open space than the NSW govt plan.

A 13 story building is still a tower, its just a smaller tower?

There is a big difference between 20-28 stories, and 30 to the originally planned 40 story towers the govt wants. Surely you accept at some point the height and/or number of towers becomes unpleasant, causes wind tunnels, causes overshadowing, makes an area with old terrace houses lose its character and causes it to become inconsistent. We're really just debating about a matter of degree. I live in an apartment in the Green Sq area, and am very very much a proponent of infill development as opposed to sprawl, so we agree on this.

There is a good precedent for very appealing cities with apartments at medium density, mixed with different types of established houses. Cities with large numbers of very tall towers, mixed in with 1 or 2 story houses across the road, not so much. Perhaps you would also have these terraces knocked down for yet more 30 or 40 or 50 story towers, I don't know. It just seems the position is more towers of more height is always better. It has to be balanced at some point with some other considerations.
 
281 - 288 of 288 Posts
Top