SkyscraperCity banner

61 - 70 of 70 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,182 Posts
Pyrmont is a peninsula. It is surrounded on three sides by water. This results in limited road access. The roads are already over capacity at times, and there is no cost-effective way to increase that capacity.
Yes there is, it just requires a generational shift in thinking. The CBD is also a peninsula, road capacity is almost entirely irrelevant.

My vision for 2050 is to have the heart of the CBD at Darling Harbour with the "old" city to the east and the "new" city to the west/south. Major metro interchange under Pyrmont (Metro West and a future Metro Ryde Rd which wouldn't even touch the current CBD). Expansion of Wentworth Park to act as a green buffer similar to what we have to the east of the CBD. Pedestrian/cycle bridges across the water to improve accessibility. Barangaroo on steroids at White Bay with major educational/cultural anchors to drive visitation.

Pyrmont has a lot of problems and the only way we address them effectively is with BIG, long-term thinking. We need to think bigger than individual precincts or even the "masterplan" that the State is supposedly developing, that's how you secure meaningful green spaces and mass infrastructure that actually makes a difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
I really hope they spend the money to clean Blackwattle Bay.

It is encouraging to see the plans detail tidal pools. However, Blackwattle Bay has serious historical and current pollution issues that will likely cost significant amounts of money to clean up. I really hope this plan aims to completely clean up this area.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
344 Posts
This is an interesting argument. As I understand it, you are saying that the price of residents keeping their green areas on Sydney's urban fringe is for residents in Pyrmont to accept significantly increased density on top of a density rate that is already one of the highest in the country. Never mind that those Pyrmont residents don't have access to anywhere near the same level of green spaces as residents in the fringe enjoy, and that the already limited and crowded green spaces in Pyrmont will become even more crowded with these additional thousands of residents.

I always find it interesting that people who do not live in the area and cannot have the same understanding as residents do of the local day-to-day planning/transport/density issues feel they are right to tell those who do reside there what's best for them!

And again, my words are being interpreted incorrectly. I did not advocate a Fortress Pyrmont approach. I accept that some development of the site is going to occur, and feel that can be managed to the benefit of everyone. My problem is with the scale of the development that is proposed, which I feel very strongly will exacerbate existing problems that are experienced by residents every day of the week.

Pyrmont is a peninsula. It is surrounded on three sides by water. This results in limited road access. The roads are already over capacity at times, and there is no cost-effective way to increase that capacity. The topography of Pyrmont imposes limits on what can be done there. That's a fact of geography that cannot be simply ignored for the benefit of people preserving their green spaces in western Sydney.
My main argument is to let more people live close to where the jobs are.

I will repeat the jobs: residents ratio in Pyrmont is almost 3:1. 34,982 jobs: 12,813 residents. Those workers are already there, travelling to Pyrmont every day, driving to work, catching the tram or train to work, buying lunch at the local café, having after work drinks in a local bar or pub – taking part in the economy and culture that Pyrmont has to offer. They do that today but at the end of the day have to get in the car and travel back home, outside of Pyrmont.

Now imagine if more of those current workers could share in the luxury of living closer to their place of employment. Chances are, their need for a car will disappear and then the increased congestion would be more of the foot and cycling variety.

Confirming Brizer’s comments, the urban fringe I refer to is not man-made parks and playgrounds. It is native undeveloped land that lies just beyond the suburbs at the end of the metropolitan area we call Sydney. My argument is about aiming to slowdown the rate that these greenfield sites are expanding to preserve the natural habitat and maintain healthy balance of biodiversity.

We need more of the dense vibrant inner-city clusters like Pyrmont, Ultimo and Green Square and less of the low-density dormant suburbs like Glenmore Park, Harrington Park and Oran Park.
 

·
Premium Member
Architecture, Urban Design & Planning
Joined
·
11,412 Posts
Greens and Jamie Parker already ramping up the NIMBY opposition. "Bring in the refugees, immigrants and international students - but DONT let them live in our neighbourhood by building any new housing". Same old hypocrisy.
Did you get the email?
 

·
La Urbanista
Joined
·
1,421 Posts
Nope just seen on FB. Everyone thinking of the traffic! No Westconnex, no road widening, no more traffic from developments! Public transport over driving! But of course that doesn't apply to me... just other people!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
654 Posts
I find it ridiculous a development like this virtually in the city would be downsized, it should be increased if anything, I could understand downsizing if they planned it in Penrith but its in the city! Its the perfect location to go big.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
If parking is an issue, then limit the number of parking spaces per development. With a new metro (hopefully), existing light rail and walking proximity to the CBD, then this shouldn't be an issue. If anything, the Greens and Clover Moore should support this type of development as it would a) lesson the carbon footprint with people being able to live closer to employment and b) provide opportunities for social housing or affordable housing for essential services workers.

A blanket no approach to development on "public land" makes no sense. If it were up to them, nothing would change. We'd have ugly concrete mixing facilities and an awful fish market here forever, rather than a common sense approach of developing one to pay for the other while enhancing the public benefit of both.

I also don't understand the Greens anti-development stance. All they do is push people to the outer suburbs which creates more reliance on cars and motorways. Surely of all the parties to push for densification around public transport-rich areas it should be the Greens?
 

·
La Urbanista
Joined
·
1,421 Posts
And don't forget future Ferry wharf. There is already the Blackwattle Bay shuttle ferry.
 

·
La Urbanista
Joined
·
1,421 Posts
I also don't understand the Greens anti-development stance. All they do is push people to the outer suburbs which creates more reliance on cars and motorways. Surely of all the parties to push for densification around public transport-rich areas it should be the Greens?
The Greens like Labor are in an identity crisis between rich champagne socialist Balmain NIMBY boomer/Gen X types and Gen Z affordable rents antifa anti-capitalist mob. By trying to compromise between both they fail both sects. The reason Balmain/inner west is a Greens stronghold is strong NIMBY values - why else would the rich terrace owners vote for them?!

With Labor its more foreign workers vs Australian citizens - Labor is supposed to represent Aussie workers - yet they are defending immigration and calling for protections to temp visas - huge mistake, and no wonder they are losing the working class.

Its no wonder LNP keeps winning overall. Everyone knows who they are for and who they represent lol.
 
61 - 70 of 70 Posts
Top