SkyscraperCity banner

421 - 440 of 480 Posts

·
...........
Joined
·
23,969 Posts
Funny, people in Denmark thought it was too cold to cycle, now Copenhagen is the poster-child.
I'm not special, I'm one of a huge number of people that live in large, hot and humid cities that don't own a car.


Brisbane isn't exceptional, it just keeps taking the easy way out instead of actually planning for the good of all.


Remember, body corporates, NIMBYs and general residents etc. don't know the side effects of what they are asking or know the best way to fix it. They probably also complain about the cost of housing and the traffic in the city.




Plenty of CBD addresses (office and resi) can go without carparks, which would blow your assumption that people need car parks. How about if you need a car park, you don't buy into a complex without car parks?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,937 Posts
Funny, people in Denmark thought it was too cold to cycle, now Copenhagen is the poster-child.
I'm not special, I'm one of a huge number of people that live in large, hot and humid cities that don't own a car.


Brisbane isn't exceptional, it just keeps taking the easy way out instead of actually planning for the good of all.


Remember, body corporates, NIMBYs and general residents etc. don't know the side effects of what they are asking or know the best way to fix it. They probably also complain about the cost of housing and the traffic in the city.




Plenty of CBD addresses (office and resi) can go without carparks, which would blow your assumption that people need car parks. How about if you need a car park, you don't buy into a complex without car parks?
^^Put a submission in with your arguments. I think it will fall on deaf ears. Economics and housing density will eventually dictate how people travel around a city.
 

·
...........
Joined
·
23,969 Posts
It'll fall on deaf ears because it aligns with the planning scheme.
Submissions only hold weight where there is a hook in the scheme.


Correct, economics will mean that Brisbane won't be as attractive for people to live and work and that will change the city.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,176 Posts
Yeah, Brisbane isn't exceptional. People drive in Brisbane because the city is set up for cars.

People need cars because the city is designed for cars. If we stopped designing the city for cars, maybe people wouldn't need them quite so much.



I say this as someone who lived in Brisbane for 12 years without a car. The distance, temperature and humidity is not the problem.
Spoken like someone who lives in the inner city and detached from the bulk of residents needs. We shouldn’t stop designing cities for cars transport, but we can widen the transport options. Also what cars are and perceived to be and how the road network is used will evolve. I prefer driving my car to mass public transport anyway, most people do.
 

·
...........
Joined
·
23,969 Posts
No, as spoken by someone that lives in exactly the type of place (and previously the actual place) that this was proposed. I am also speaking as someone who gets quite frustrated that people personal preferences are being subsidised at a higher rate than choices that are better for the community at large.

I also didn't say we should stop designing out cities with a consideration for cars, but mandating minimum car parking rates and 800 or more spots for a development of this size is actually just taking the piss.

Regardless of the location, they are designing this only for cars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Woollies were on this site for decades before they closed the store a few years ago. I'm sure they would be looking at it.
Woollies are desperate to be back there. The Toowong Coles is an outstanding performer and there is a demographic "hole" there for a Supermarket. Others will be looking as well. Land for a full size Woollies is very rare in central Brisbane. And if it were available it would be too expensive for a supermarket to stack up. They are also competing with resi, office and boutique retail space gyms etc which pay much higher rent. 2700sqm is not a full line Woollies. Its the smallest size they would probably do. The car numbers they insist on also make it difficult. Odds on it the Supermarket won't make it if this development ever gets up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
683 Posts
Also, Coles have another new full line supermarket under construction in Taringa, so Woolies will be very keen to not give away too much market share in this area and will likely already have this site signed up..
 

·
Optimist
Joined
·
7,318 Posts
Spoken like someone who lives in the inner city and detached from the bulk of residents needs. We shouldn’t stop designing cities for cars transport, but we can widen the transport options. Also what cars are and perceived to be and how the road network is used will evolve. I prefer driving my car to mass public transport anyway, most people do.
You realise that this development, along with most on the forum are in the inner city right? Obviously a development out in the suburbs should have more parking due to less transport options but not in places like Toowong.

It doesn't matter if your preference is to drive. It is not possible for everyone in a city of millions for everyone to drive. In Toowong it is actually faster and more convenient to take the train or cycle into the CBD than drive. It makes no sense to have an oversupply of car parks here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,937 Posts
This new development will probably pass in it current form with a few amendments or verifications. Council is more interested in maintaining pedestrian activation through retail and Green Aesthetics such as (spill plants, creepers, water features and harvesting, as well other Green Credentials that comply with current legislation.
 

·
...........
Joined
·
23,969 Posts
Lol. 800 car parks is not green credentials, but agree this will sail through.
It also kills pedestrian activation even if the street frontage is shops.


The problem is the planning scheme mandating a bad development.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,176 Posts
You realise that this development, along with most on the forum are in the inner city right? Obviously a development out in the suburbs should have more parking due to less transport options but not in places like Toowong.

It doesn't matter if your preference is to drive. It is not possible for everyone in a city of millions for everyone to drive. In Toowong it is actually faster and more convenient to take the train or cycle into the CBD than drive. It makes no sense to have an oversupply of car parks here.
Yes that was my point, it’s not stop designing cities for cars. People will always need cars, they are an even more essential transportation mode in Australia and QLD. Unfortunately we don’t live in Europe, we live in a state with vast distances and more travel required. The last thing you want to do is create a city that is not cohesive, leading to an inner city enclave. Provide more transport options, sure reduce some car parks in developments, not everyone has or wants a car. But don’t take the approach that cars need to be removed or that we need to stop designing cities for cars. That approach isn’t suited.
 

·
...........
Joined
·
23,969 Posts
You've got it the wrong way around.
We need cars because we design for cars because we need cars.
You know Amsterdam was also filled with cars and traffic sewers, right? They stopped designing for cars and no people think they are exceptional.



No, Australian's are essentially just lazy and selfish.
 

·
...........
Joined
·
23,969 Posts
Amsterdam looks nothing like this now because they prioritised building for people and not cars.



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,645 Posts
Lol. 800 car parks is not green credentials, but agree this will sail through.
It also kills pedestrian activation even if the street frontage is shops.


The problem is the planning scheme mandating a bad development.
800 or 500? I read an article that said there were 500 spaces.
 

·
...........
Joined
·
23,969 Posts
I've seen 800 multiple times. I'll go back through the report.
 

·
...........
Joined
·
23,969 Posts
According to the development application, 843 in total.


However I stand corrected. The planning scheme identifies a maximum of 333 for the non-residential component (they've proposed 610) and a minimum of 184 for the residential component (they've proposed 233). I now absolutely will submit as they are far in excess of what has been seen as a maximum for the precinct.
 
421 - 440 of 480 Posts
Top